BX  5930  .S65  1850 


Some  reasons  why  I  cannot 
become  an  Episcopalian 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/somereasonswhyicOOphil 


SOME 


REASONS 


WHY 


I  CANNOT 


ECOME  AN  EPISCOrALIAN. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

KING  &  BAIRD,  PRINTERS,  No.  9  SANSOM  STREET. 

1850. 


,^Y  OF  WB/Kft^ 
DEC     "7   »92 


SOME 


REASONS 


WHY 


I    CANNOT 


BECOME  AN   EPISCOPALIAN 


PHILADELPHIA; 
KING  &  BAIED,  PRINTERS,  NO.  9,  SANSOM  STREET. 

1850. 


/■4- 


SOME  REASONS,  &c. 


I.  I  cannot  believe  the  ApO'  jHcal  Succession. 

The  doctrine  of  the  apostolical  succession,  I 
understand  to  be  this :  That  the  clergymen  of 
the  Episcopal  denomination  are  in  possession 
of  a  ministerial  authority  derived  from  the 
apostles  of  Christ,  through  an  unbroken  suc- 
cession of  bishops  from  the  apostolic  times  to 
the  present  day,  the  bishop  constituting  the 
first  link  in  the  sacred  chain,  being  consecrated 
with  imposition  of  hands  by  some  one  of  the 
apostles,  and  every  succeeding  bishop  being 
duly  consecrated  with  like  imposition  of  hands 
by  one  oc  more  bishops  who  had  themselves  re- 


ceived  due  consecration,  either  from  apostolic 
or  episcopal  hands.  The  reality  of  such  a 
succession  is  plainly  a  question  of  fact,  and 
whether  any  given  clergyman  is  such  a  succes- 
sor of  any  apostle,  is  plainly  a  question  of  a 
genealogical  nature,  to  be  determined,  like  other 
questions  of  pedigree,  by  an  examination  of 
the  evidence  adduced  in  support  of  the  pre- 
tension. 

To  a  christian,  a  clear  promise  of  the  Sa- 
viour, or  a  clear  prophetic  declaration  of  any 
one  of  his  apostles,  that  such  a  succession  of 
ministers  should  always  exist,  would  of  course 
be  sufficient  and  conclusive  evidence  that  such 
a  succession  has  always  heretofore  existed  and 
still  exists ;  and  the  only  question  would  then 
be  whether  the  clergy  of  the  Episcopal  denomi- 
nation are  such  successors,  either  exclusively 
and  alone,  or  in  common  with  the  clergy  of  one 
or  more  of  the  other  denominations.  But  I 
find  no  such  promise  or  prophetic  declaration, 
and  do  not  believe  that  any  can  be  adduced.* 

Doctor  Wain  Wright,  in  his  controversy  with 
Doctor  Potts,  (if  controversy  that  can  be 
called,  in  which  the  first  named  gentleman 
might  well  have  propounded  to  his  antagonist 
the  doubt  so  pathetically  expressed  by  Juvenal, 


si  rixa  est,  uhi  tu  puIsas,ego  vapulo  tantum,) 
has  relied  upon  the  words  of  the  Saviour,  in 
Mattheiv,  xxviii.  20,  as  importing  the  promise 
in  question  ;  for  he  is  unable  to  conceive,  he 
says,  any  other  mode  in  which  the  promise  of 
Christ  there  made  to  the  eleven  disciples,  to 
be  with  them  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world,  could  be  fulfilled,  except  by  the  main- 
tenance of  such  an  apostolical  succession  as 
he  contends  for.  This  inability  of  Doctor 
Wainwright  may  perhaps  excite  the  unaffected 
compassion  of  those  who  have  a  feeling  for 
human  infirmity,  but  will  scarcely  possess  a  de- 
cisive weight  with  them  as  an  argument,  when 
they  themselves  plainly  discern  that  the  words 
referred  to  may  import  no  more  than  a  promise 
of  the  founder  of  Christianity  that  always, 
while  the  world  should  endure,  there  should 
exist  a  distinct  class  of  his  followers,  whose 
special  business  of  life  should  be  to  proclaim 
and  expound  his  gospel,  and  to  administer  the 
sacraments  of  his  appointment. 

In  the  absence  of  an  express  promise  or 
prophecy  of  such  an  apostolical  succession  as  the 
Episcopalians  contend  for,  they  must  maintain 
their  position  by  the  adduction  of  historical 
evidence,  or  they  must  fail  in  maintaining  it 


at  all.  But  where  is  the  historical  evidence 
that  the  bishops  of  the  Episcopal  denomination 
are  in  the  line  of  such  succession  ?  Can  any 
one  of  those  bishops  tell  who  was  his  own 
spiritual  progenitor  in  the  fiftieth  remove  ?  Can 
he  declare  the  name  of  such  progenitor,  the 
period  in  which  he  lived,  the  episcopal  seat 
which  he  occupied,  the  bishop  or  bishops  who 
performed  the  solemnity  of  his  consecration  ? 
To  these  inquiries  the  Episcopalian  bishop  of 
the  present  day,  if  he  should  condescend  to 
reply  at  all,  must  reply  that  he  knows  nothing, 
and  can  declare  nothing  in  respect  to  any  one 
of  the  particulars  referred  to.  Consequently, 
his  claim  of  apostolical  succession,  so  far  as 
relates  to  that  link  in  the  chain,  (and  the  same 
would  be  equally  true  of  much  the  greater  pra- 
portion  of  the  rest,)  must  be  founded  upon  a 
general  presumption,  resulting  from  a  proba- 
bility supposed  or  assumed  to  be  inherent  in 
the  nature  of  the  case,  that  he  had  a  spiritual 
ancestor  in  the  fiftieth  degree,  as  well  as  a 
natural  ancestor  in  that  degree.  It  is  obvious, 
however,  that  while  the  claim  of  a  natural  pro- 
genitor in  the  fiftieth  degree  is  incontrovertible, 
because  resting  upon  a  physical  necessity,  the 
presumption  of  a  spiritual  ancestor  in  the  same 


degree  can  never  rise  higher  than  a  probabilit  j. 
It  will  always  remain  a  possible  case  that  any 
given  bishop  of  the  present  day  may  have  had 
no  spiritual  progenitor  at  all  in  the  fiftieth  re- 
move. But  let  it  be  supposed  that  a  complete 
genealogy  is  produced,  by  which  some  particu- 
lar bishop  of  the  present  day  avers  himself  to 
be  connected  with  an  apostle  in  the  direct  line 
of  spiritual  descent,  (though  bold  indeed  would 
the  bishop  be  who  should  venture  to  submit  his 
claim  in  such  a  form;)  let  it  be  conceded  that 
the  names  in  the  list  are  the  names  of  christian 
bishops  who  have  really  existed,  and  that  to- 
gether they  fill  up  the  whole  period  intervening 
between  the  time  of  the  apostles  and  the  pre- 
sent day ;  let  it  be  conceded  that  the  first  bishop 
in  the  list  received  his  consecration  from  the 
hands  of  the  apostle  there  named,  and  (what 
can  never  be  proved)  that  every  other  bishop 
in  the  list  was  consecrated  by  the  bishop  there 
named  as  his  immediate  predecessor ;  still  it 
will  remain  to  be  proved,  or  rather,  as  no- 
thing like  proof  can  be  pretended  to  exist  in 
any  such  case,  it  will  remain  to  be  assumed 
that  these  successive  consecrations  were  all  duly 
performed,  and  that  there  existed  neither  defect 
of  formality  in  any  one  of  the  acts  of  conse- 


cration,  nor  defect  of  qualification  in  any  one 
of  the  persons  consecrated,  or  of  the  persons 
consecrating.     It  is  difficult  to  induce  Episco- 
palians to  speak  plainly  and  precisely  on  the 
subject  of  such  defects,  but  they  all   admit,  I 
presume,  that  a  consecration  would  be  invalid 
if  the  party  performing  it  had  never  been  duly 
consecrated  himself,  or  if  either  he  or  the  party 
receiving  consecration  had  never  been  validly 
baptized.     Let  it  be  supposed  then,  that  the 
combination  of  these  and  all  other  possibilities 
of  invalidity  would  make  up,  in  respect  to  the 
second  consecration  in  the  series  of  an  alleged 
succession  from   the  time  of  the    apostles,  a 
single  chance  of  invalidity,  while  the  chances 
of  validity  amounted  to  ninety-nine,  and  that, 
in  each  successive  grade  of  the  descent,  the 
chances  for  validity  of  consecration  would  un- 
dergo a  diminution  in  the  same  ratio,  that  is, 
would  be  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  the  chances 
for  validity  in  the  grade  next  preceding ;  let  it 
be  supposed  also  that  the  series  from  the  time 
of  the  apostles  to  the  present  day,  consists  of 
one  hundred    and  fifty  bishops,  which  would 
give  twelve  years  for  the  average  duration  of 
episcopal   incumbency:    the   result   will  be  a 
probability,  in  the  proportion  of  seventy-eight 


chances  to  twenty-two,  or  nearly  as  four  to  one, 
that  the  bishop  of  the  present  day,  the  last  in 
the  supposed  series,  is  not  a  successor  of  the 
apostles  in  the  sense  contended  for  by  Episco- 
palians. And  from  any  ratio  they  may  choose 
to  assign  between  the  chances  of  invalidity  and 
validity,  and  for  the  diminution  of  the  latter, 
there  must  result  some  considerable  amount,  if 
not  an  absolute  preponderance  of  chances  that 
the  bishops  of  the  present  day  are  not  in 
any  such  line  of  succession  from  the  apostles. 
To  annul  the  adverse  chances  altogether,  and 
make  such  a  succession  a  matter  of  absolute 
certainty,  would  require  nothing  less  than  a 
perpetual  miracle  ;  of  which,  as  before  remark- 
ed, there  is  no  divine  promise,  and  of  whichfco 
one  pretends  to  adduce  any  other  evidence. 

These  considerations,  which  readily  occur  in 
reflecting  upon  the  subject,  and  which  seem  to 
be  as  incontrovertible  as  they  are  obvious,  have, 
over  and  over  again,  and  by  various  writers, 
been  urged  upon  the  Episcopalians ;  yet  nothing 
is  more  common  than  to  hear  Episcopalians  in 
all  the  complacency  of  inexpugnable  stupidity, 
asserting  or  assuming  the  absolute  certainty  of 
their  apostolical  succession,  and  founding  upon 
it  a  claim  to  regard  their  own  as  the  only  true 


10 

church,  and  to  treat  all  other  protestants  as 
mere  schismatics.  I  saw  an  Episcopalian  book 
not  long  ago,  the  title  of  which  I  have  now 
forgotten,  in  which  the  author,  with  apparent 
seriousness  and  triumph,  asserted  that  the  schis- 
matics had  never  been  able,  with  all  their 
eagerness  of  hostility,  to  point  out  any  defect 
in  the  apostolical  succession  of  the  Episcopal 
clergy.  The  schismatics,  when  they  point  out 
the  fact  that  the  greater  number  of  the  links 
in  the  alleged  chain  of  succession  are  altogether 
invisible,  as  well  to  Episcopalians  (by  their  own 
confession)  as  to  themselves,  so  that  it  can 
never  be  ascertained  whether  the  chain  is  con- 
tinuous or  not,  think  that  they  do  point  out 
^sofiething  very  like  a  defect  in  the  chain,  some- 
thing which,  if  not  a  defect,  yet  answers  the 
same  purpose,  and  at  least  as  effectually.  They 
think  it  not  entirely  reasonable  that  they  should 
be  required  to  find  out  for  the  Episcopalians 
the  missing  links  of  their  chain,  and  then  to 
undertake  the  task  of  demonstrating  to  Episco- 
palian intellects  that  those  links  are  vitiated 
by  particular  defects.  And  on  both  these  points 
unprejudiced  judges  will  probably,  without  a 
single  exception,  concur  in  opinion  with  the 
schismatics.     The  boast  of  the  writer  just  re- 


11 

ferred  to  proceeds  evidently  upon  some  indis- 
tinct notion,  which  seems  to  be  perpetually 
hovering  like  a  fog  about  the  minds  of  Episco- 
palians, that  their  mere  claim  of  the  apostolical 
succession  is  to  be  taken  as  proof  that  they 
really  possess  it,  until  demonstrative  evidence 
is  adduced  that  they  can  by  no  possibility  have 
any  such  possession  among  them.  Their  de- 
sire to  place  the  question  upon  that  ground  is 
very  natural ;  for  they  know  that  the  schisma- 
tics, believing  the  Bible,  must  believe  that,  since 
nothing  is  impossible  with  God,  he  may  by  pos- 
sibility have  maintained,  against  all  perils  and 
every  appearance  to  the  contrary,  precisely 
such  an  apostolical  succession  as  the  Episco- 
palians assert,  and  that  consequently  no  man 
can  ever  prove  it  absolutely  impossible  that  the 
suspended  bishop  of  New  York  should  be  a  suc- 
cessor of  the  apostles,  any  more  than  he  can 
prove  it  impossible  that  Hophni  and  Phinehas, 
whose  conduct  is  detailed  in  1  Samuel,  ii.  22, 
were  sons  of  the  pious  Eli,  and  priests  of  the 
Lord. 

Perhaps  the  claim  of  apostolical  succession 
asserted  by  the  Episcopalians  might  be  adjusted 
between  them  and  the  schismatics  by  a  compro- 
mise.    At  a  period  touching  and  immediately 


12 

following  the  time  of  the  apostles,  there  lived 
a  certain  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  named  Papias, 
of  whom  Eusebius,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History, 
(book  iii.  ch.  39.)  gives  an  account.  Papias 
appears  to  have  been  a  great  admirer  of  eccle- 
siastical legends  and  traditions,  which  he  sedu- 
lously collected  together  in  his  writings ;  though 
some  of  these  stories  were  of  a  nature  so  extra- 
ordinary, that  Eusebius  treats  them  as  little 
better  than  apocryphal.  For  after  detailing 
several  of  the  relations  of  Papias,  Eusebius  (I 
quote  him  here  as  translated  by  the  Reverend 
C.  F.  Cruse)  proceeds  thus :  "  The  same  his- 
torian also  gives  other  accounts,  which  he  says 
he  adds  as  received  by  him  from  unwritten 
tradition,  likewise  certain  strange  parables  of 
our  Lord,  and  of  his  doctrine,  and  some  other 
matters  rather  too  fabulous,''  Eusebius  adds, 
as  indeed  he  well  might,  that  Papias  was  exceed- 
ing small  of  intellect  (^a^o6pa  c^txpoj  tbv  vovv).  The 
schismatics  cannot  admit  that  the  Episcopalian 
clergy  are  successors  of  the  apostles,  but  may 
perhaps  be  willing  to  admit  that  very  many  of 
them  are  legitimate  successors  of  Papias,  who 
was  unquestionably  a  successor  of  the  apostles. 
But,  from  the  known  reluctance  of  Episcopa- 
lians to  surrender  any  part  of  any  pretension 


13 

the  J  may  ever  have  advanced,  I  should  not  be 
greatly  surprised  if  they  were  to  reject  even 
the  offer  of  a  compromise  so  liberal  as  that  just 
suggested. 

I  am  aware  that  the  Episcopal  church  does 
not  in  her  articles  hold  forth  the  doctrine  of 
the  apostolical  succession  as  one  which  either 
the  members  or  the  ministers  of  her  commu- 
nion are  required  to  believe,  and  that  Arch- 
bishop Whately  is  by  no  means  the  only 
Episcopalian  clergyman  who  regards  that  doc- 
trine as  a  silly  fable,  or  something  worse ;  but 
I  know  also  that  a  large  portion  both  of  the 
ministers  and  of  the  members,  perhaps  a  ma- 
jority of  both,  profess  to  believe  it,  and  to 
regard  it  as  of  high  importance ;  and  it  appears 
to  my  apprehension  a  valid  reason  why  I  should 
not  become  a  member  of  that  communion,  that, 
in  case  I  should  do  so,  I  might  very  probably 
find  myself  under  the  charge  of  a  minister 
either  weak  enough  to  credit  such  a  legend  as 
that  of  the  apostolical  succession,  or  unscrupu- 
lous enough,  if  he  disbelieved  it  himself,  to 
encourage  the  belief  of  it  in  others,  with  a  view 
to  the  supposed  honour  and  advancement  of  his 
church. 


14 


II.  I  cannot  believe  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
the  power  of  remitting  and  retaining  sins,  are 
conveyed  hy  Episcopal  ordination. 

We  read  in  the  Gospel  according  to  John, 
(XX.  22,  23,)  that  the  Saviour,  appearing  to  his 
disciples  after  his  resurrection,  breathed  upon 
them,  and  said,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted 
unto  them ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained."  When  a  believer  in  the 
gospel  first  learns  that  the  Episcopalian  bishop 
in  performing  the  ceremony  of  ordination,  takes 
upon  himself  to  address  the  very  same  words  to 
the  party  receiving  the  ordination,  the  impres- 
sion is  uniformly,  I  believe,  startling  and  pain- 
ful. This  feeling  is  naturally  succeeded  by  a 
desire  to  be  informed  how  the  seeming  blas- 
phemy (for  such  it  certainly  seems)  is  explained 
and  defended  by  Episcopalians.  If  he  resorti 
to  Hooker,  the  great  Malleus  Hmretieorum,  or 
"Hammerer  of  the  Heretics,"  as  Episcopalians 
delight  to  call  him,  he  will  find  in  the  Ecclesi- 
astical Polity,  book  v.  sect.  77,  a  defence  which 
though  of  considerable  length,  it  may  be  as 
well  to  give  in  the  Hammerer's  own  words. 


15 

"  A  thing  much  stumbled  at  in  the  manner 
of  giving  orders,  is  our  using  those  memorable 
words  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Christ,  <•  Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost.'  The  Holy  Ghost,  they  say, 
we  cannot  give,  and  therefore  we  <  foolishly' 
bid  men  receive  it.  Wise  men,  for  their  au- 
thority's sake,  must  have  leave  to  befool  them 
whom  they  are  able  to  make  wise  by  better 
instruction.  Notwithstanding,  if  it  may  please 
their  wisdom,  as  well  to  hear  what  fools  can 
say,  as  to  control  that  which  they  do,  thus  have 
we  heard  some  wise  men  teach,  namely,  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  may  be  used  to  signify  not  the 
person  alone,  but  the  'gifts'  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
and  we  know  that  spiritual  gifts  are  not  only 
abilities  to  do  things  miraculous,  as  to  speak 
with  tongues  which  were  never  taught  us,  to 
cure  diseases  without  art,  and  such  like ;  but 
also  that  the  very  authority  and  power  which 
is  given  men  in  the  church  to  be  ministers  of 
holy  things,  this  is  contained  within  the  number 
of  those  gifts  whereof  the  Holy  Ghost  is  author ; 
and  therefore  he  which  giveth  this  power  may 
say,  without  absurdity  or  folly,  '  Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost,'  such  power  as  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
hath  indued  his  church  withal,  such  power  as 
neither  prince  nor  potentate,  king  nor  Caesar 


16 

on  earth  can  give.  So  that  if  men  alone  had 
devised  this  form  of  speech,  thereby  to  express 
the  heavenly  wellspring  of  that  power  which 
ecclesiastical  ordinations  do  bestow,  it  is  not  so 
foolish  but  that  wise  men  might  bear  with  it. 
If  then  our  Lord  and  Saviour  himself  have  used 
the  self-same  form  of  words,  and  that  in  the 
self-same  kind  of  action,  although  there  be  but 
the  least  show  of  probability,  yea,  or  any  possi- 
bility that  his  meaning  might  be  the  same  which 
ours  is,  it  should  teach  sober  and  grave  men 
not  to  be  too  venturous  in  condemning  that  of 
folly,  which  is  not  impossible  to  have  in  it  more 
profoundness  of  wisdom  than  flesh  and  blood 
should  presume  to  control.  Our  Saviour,  after 
his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  gave  his  apos- 
tles their  commission,  saying,  <all  power  is 
given  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth:  Go,  there- 
fore, and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.' 
(Matt,  xxviii.  18.)  In  sum  ^as  my  Father  sent 
me,  so  send  I  you.'  (John  xx.  21.)  Whereunto 
St.  John  doth  add  farther,  that  ^  having  thus 
spoken,  he  breathed  on  them  and  said.  Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost.'     By  which  words  he  must  of 


17 

likelihood  understand  some  gift  of  the  Spirit 
which  was  presently  at  that  time  bestowed 
upon  them,  as  both  the  speech  of  actual  delivery 
in  saying,  <  Receive,'  and  the  visible  sign  there- 
of, his  breathing,  did  show.  Absurd  it  were  to 
imagine  our  Saviour  did  both  to  the  ear,  and 
also  to  the  very  eye,  express  a  real  donation, 
and  they  at  that  time  receive  nothing.  It  rest- 
eth  then  that  we  search  what  especial  grace 
they  did  at  that  time  receive.  Touching  mira- 
culous power  of  the  Spirit,  most  apparent  it  is, 
that  as  they  then  received  it  not,  but  the  promise 
thereof  was  to  be  shortly  after  performed.  The 
words  of  St.  Luke  concerning  that  power  are 
therefore  set  down  with  signification  of  the  time 
to  come:  ^Behold,  I  send  the  promise  of  my 
Father  upon  you,  but  tarry  you  in  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  until  ye  be  induedwith  power  from  on 
high.'  (Luke  xxiv.  49.)  Wherefore  undoubt- 
edly, it  was  some  other  effect  of  the  Spirit,  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  some  other  kind,  which  our 
Saviour  did  then  bestow.  What  other  likelier 
than  that  which  himself  doth  mention,  as  it 
should  seem  of  purpose  to  take  away  all  ambi- 
guous constructions,  and  to  declare  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  which  he  then  gave,  was  an  holy 
and  a  ghostly  authority,  authority  over  the 


18 

souls  of  men,  authority,  a  part  whereof  consist- 
eth  in  power  to  remit  and  retain  sins  ?  '  Receive 
the  Holj  Ghost :  whose  sins  soever  ye  remit, 
they  are  remitted ;  whose  sins  ye  retain,  they 
are  retained.'  (John  xx.  22,  23.)  Whereas, 
therefore,  the  other  evangelists  had  set  down, 
that  Christ  did  before  his  suffering  promise  to 
give  his  apostles  «the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,'  [Matt.  xvi.  19.]  and  being  risen 
from  the  dead  promise  moreover  at  that  time  a 
miraculous  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  St.  John 
addeth,  that  he  also  invested  them  even  then 
with  the  powder  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  castiga- 
tion  and  relaxation  of  sin,  wherein  was  fully 
accomplished  that  which  the  promise  of  the 
keys  did  import.  Seeing,  therefore,  that  the 
same  power  is  now  given,  why  should  the  same 
form  of  words  expressing  it  be  thought '  foolish  ?' 
The  cause  why  we  breathe  not,  as  Christ  did 
on  them  unto  whom  he  imparted  power,  is,  for 
that  neither  Spirit  nor  spiritual  authority  may 
be  thought  to  proceed  from  us,  which  are  but 
delegates  or  assigns  to  give  men  possession  of 
his  graces.  Now,  besides  that  the  power  and 
authority  delivered  with  those  words  is  itself 
xac^fia,  a  gracious  donation  which  the  Spirit  of 
God  doth  bestow,  we  may  most  assuredly  per- 


19 

suade  ourselves,  that  the  hand  which  imposeth 
upon  us  the  function  of  our  ministry,  doth  under 
the  same  form  of  words  so  tie  itself  thereunto, 
that  he  which  receiveth  the  burthen  is  thereby 
for  ever  warranted  to  have  the  Spirit  with  him, 
and  in  him,  for  his  assistance,  aid,  countenance, 
and  support,  in  whatsoever  he  faithfully  doth 
to  discharge  duty.  Knowing,  therefore,  that 
when  we  take  ordination,  we  also  receive  the 
presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  partly  to  guide, 
direct,  and  strengthen  us  in  all  our  ways,  and 
partly  to  assume  unto  itself  for  the  more  autho- 
rity those  actions  that  appertain  to  our  place 
and  calling ;  can  our  ears  admit  such  a  speech 
uttered  in  the  reverend  performance  of  that 
solemnity ;  or  can  we  at  any  time  renew  the 
memory,  and  enter  into  serious  cogitation  there- 
of, but  with  much  admiration  and  joy?  Remove 
what  these  ^  foolish'  words  do  imply,  and  what 
hath  the  ministry  of  God  besides  wherein  to 
glory  ?  Whereas,  now,  forasmuch  as  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  our  Saviour  in  his  first  ordinations 
gave,  doth  no  less  concur  with  spiritual  voca- 
tions throughout  all  ages,  than  the  'spirit,' 
which  God  derived  from  Moses  to  them  that 
assisted  him  in  his  government,  (Numb.  xi.  17- 
25.)  did  descend  from  them  to  their  successors 


20 

in  like  authority  and  place,  we  have  for  the 
least  and  meanest  duties,  performed  by  virtue 
of  ministerial  power,  that  to  dignify,  grace, 
and  authorize  them,  which  no  other  offices  on 
earth  can  challenge.  Whether  we  preach,  pray, 
baptize,  communicate,  condemn,  give  absolution, 
or  whatsoever ;  as  disposers  of  God's  mysteries, 
our  words,  judgments,  acts,  and  deeds,  are  not 
ours  but  the  Holy  Ghost's.  Enough,  if  un- 
feignedly  and  in  heart  we  did  believe  it,  enough 
to  banish  whatsoever  may  justly  be  thought  cor- 
rupt either  in  bestowing,  or  in  using,  or  in 
esteeming  the  same  otherwise  than  is  meet. 
For  profanely  to  bestow,  or  loosely  to  use,  or 
vilely  to  esteem  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  all  in 
show  and  profession  abhor." 

It  thus  appears  to  be  Hooker's  opinion,  that 
when  the  Saviour  breathed  upon  his  apostles 
and  said,  <•<■  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,"  he 
conveyed  to  them  an  immediate  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  But  the  contrary  opinion  is 
maintained  by  Doctor  Bloomfield  and  the  Rev. 
E.  Valpy,  ministers  of  the  established  Church 
of  England,  in  their  respective  editions  of  the 
Greek  Testament ;  and  Doctor  Bloomfield  as- 
sures us  that  the  best  commentators  concur 
with  him  in    that  view.     The  learned  German 


21 

commentator,  Rosenmuller,  certainly  does. 
According  to  Doctors  Bloomfield,  Valpy,  and 
Rosenmuller,  (to  whom,  upon  Doctor  Bloom- 
field's  authority,  we  may  venture  to  add  all 
''  the  best  commentators")  there  was  nothing 
conveyed  at  that  time  by  Christ  to  his  apostles, 
except  a  renewed  and  more  impressive  promise 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  accompanied  by  the  sym- 
bolic act  of  breathing  upon  them  ;  and  the 
promise  so  made  received  its  accoijiplishment 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  This  opinion,  I 
think,  is  corroborated  by  the  circumstance  that 
the  apostles  were  directed  to  remain  at  Jeru- 
salem until  they  should  be  endued  with  power 
from  on  high  ;  a  direction  which  they  seem  to 
have  regarded  as  requiring  that  they  should 
not,  even  in  Jerusalem,  commence  the  work  of 
their  ministry  at  any  earlier  period ;  for  though 
we  read  in  the  last  verse  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel, 
that  after  their  Lord's  ascension  into  heaven, 
they  were  continually  in  the  temple,  praising 
and  blessing  God,  yet  we  are  nowhere  inform- 
ed that,  prior  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  they 
preached  the  Gospel,  or  attempted  to  make 
proselytes ;  and  we  know  that  the  disciples 
who,  very  shortly  before  that  day,  assembled 
themselves  together  for  the  purpose  of  electing 


22 

an  apostle  in  the  room  of  Judas  Iscariot,  were 
only  about  a  hundred  and  twenty  in  number, 
(Acts,  i.  15.)  all  of  whom,  it  may  be  presumed, 
had  been  personal  followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
himself;  whereas,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
after  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  about 
three  thousand  souls  were  added  to  the  Church 
through  the  preaching  of  St.  Peter.  (Acts,  ii. 
41.)  If  then  the  apostles  were  directed  not  to 
commence  the  exercise  of  their  ministry  until 
they  should  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high, 
and  were  not  so  endued,as  it  is  universally  admit- 
ted they  were  not,  until  the  day  of  Pentecost;  an 
imperfect  communication  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at 
an  earlier  period,  investing  them  with  only  a 
part  of  their  destined  powers,  the  exercise  of 
even  that  part  being  restrained  i^ntil  they  should 
receive  the  rest,  would  seem  to  be  very  improba- 
ble, because,  (so  far  as  we  can  discern)  very 
useless.  Let  us  suppose,  therefore,  with  Bloom- 
field,  Valpy,  Rosenmuller,  and  the  best  com- 
mentators, that  what  the  apostles  received  from 
Christ  at  the  time  referred  to,  was  only  a  pro- 
mise of  the  Holy  Ghost,  confirmed  and  made 
more  impressive  by  the  symbolic  act  of  breath- 
ing upon  them ;  it  may  readily  be  conceded 
that  the  Episcopalian  priest,  at  his  ordination. 


23 

receives  from  the  bishop  exactly  the  same  pro- 
mise confirmed  by  a  symbolic  act  equally  im- 
pressive,—  that  of  the  imposition  of  hands. 
But  the  difference  between  the  two  cases  is 
still,  I  think,  very  considerable  ;  for,  while  the 
promise  of  Christ  was  fulfilled  in  splendor  and 
miracle  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  that  of  the 
bishop,  to  all  outward  appearance,  and  to  all 
human  capacity  of  discernment,  remains  for- 
ever afterwards  what  it  was  at  the  first,  a 
barren  promise,  a  mere  illusion,  possibly  a 
fearful  blasphemy. 

Let  us  suppose,  on  the  other  hand,  with 
Hooker,  that  the  apostles  received  from  Christ 
an  actual  and  immediate  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  that  the  nature  and  purpose  of  that 
gift  are  to  be  explained  by  the  words  of  the 
donor  immediately  following, — "  Whose  sins 
soever  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  ;  whose  sins 
ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  It  should  seem 
upon  Hooker's  own  principle  of  explanation, 
that  the  power  of  remitting  and  of  retaining 
sins  was  the  whole,  and  not  merely  a  part  of 
the  Ghostly  authority  then  coiiferred  upon  the 
apostles;  for  the  Saviour  himself  speaks  of 
that  power  alone.  However,  whether  we  sup- 
pose that  the  Ghostly  authority  then  conferred 


24 

upon  them  was  limited  to  the  power  of  remit- 
ting and  retaining  sins,  or  that  it  embraced  all 
the  other  powers  which  Hooker  derives  to  the 
Episcopalian  priest  from  the  ordination  of  the 
Episcopalian  bishop,  namely  ;  powers  to  preach, 
to  pray,  to  baptize,  and  to  administer  the  sa- 
crament of  the  eucharist,  the  question  in  either 
case  will  be,  not  whether  the  powers  of  the 
apostles  were  the  same  in  number  or  in  name, 
with  those  conferred  upon  the  priest  by  the  or- 
dination of  the  bishop,  but  whether,  for  his 
guidance  and  aid  in  the  execution  of  those 
powers,  the  priest  receives  the  same  communi- 
cation of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  the  apostles 
received.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
does,  if  Hooker's  words  are  to  be  taken  as  a 
true  exposition  of  the  case ;  for  Hooker  de- 
clares, as  we  have  seen,  that  whether  in  preach- 
ing, praying,  baptizing,  communicating,  con- 
demning, giving  absolution,  or  whatsoever,  the 
words,  judgments,  acts  and  deeds  of  the  priest, 
as  a  disposer  of  God's  mysteries,  are  not  Ms 
otvn^  hut  the  Holy  Ghost's.  But,  not  to  press 
the  literal  sense  of  Hooker's  words,  which 
plainly  import  a  claim,  for  every  Episcopalian 
priest,  of  infallibility  as  perfect  as  any  Roman 
Catholic  ever  claimed  for  the  bishop  of  Rome ; 


25 

I  proceed  to  inquire  whether  there  is  any  evi- 
dence that  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  any  degree  or 
proper  sense  at  all,  is  communicated  by  Epis- 
copal ordination. 

I  presume  the  most  zealous  Episcopalian  will 
scarcely  contend  that  the  Episcopalian  priest 
ordinarily  exhibits,  as  the  consequence  of  his 
ordination,  any  very  marked  improvement, 
either  in  his  intellectual  or  in  his  moral  endow- 
ments. If,  immediately  previous  to  his  ordi- 
nation, his  learning  was  scanty,  it  receives  no 
sudden  increase  afterwards  :  if  his  natural 
abilities  were  moderate,  they  remain  without 
visible  change.  Ordination  has  never  yet 
transformed  a  Jonathan  Wainwright  into  a 
Robert  Hall.  An  alteration,  partaking  of  both 
the  moral  and  the  intellectual,  may  indeed  be 
occasionally  observed,  though  I  doubt  whether 
it  can  justly  be  regarded  as  an  improvement. 
Washington  Irving  tells  a  story  of  a  Dutchman, 
who,  when  his  cabbage  garden  in  the  environs 
of  New  York  was  invaded  by  the  extension  of 
some  of  the  streets,  at  first  thought  himself 
reduced  from  simple  poverty  to  utter  ruin,  as 
his  garden  was  entirely  spoiled  ;  but  having 
soon  found  that  his  lots  were  in  great  demand 
as  sites  for  the  erection  of  new  buildings,  and 
3 


S6 

having  become,  by  means  of  building-leases, 
the  landlord  of  several  valuable  houses,  yield- 
ing a  considerable  amount  of  rents,  he  experi- 
enced some  strange  confusion  of  ideas,  by 
which  he  was  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
improved  condition  of  his  fortunes  was  to  be 
ascribed  entirely  to  the  strength  and  sagacity 
of  his  own  intellect ;  whereupon  he  assumed  for 
his  armorial  crest,  the  figure  of  a  cabbage,  with 
the  motto  "  All  Head."  In  like  manner  it 
may  occasionally  happen  that  an  Episcopalian 
priest,  having  heard  the  ordaining  bishop  ad- 
dress to  him  the  words  "Receive  the  Holy  Ghost," 
and  having  read  or  heard  of  Hooker's  declaration 
that  the  words,  judgments,  acts  and  deeds  of 
the  priest  who  has  received  Episcopal  ordina- 
tion, are  not  his  own,  but  the  Holy  Ghost's, 
will  conclude  (and  we  cannot  deny  that  his 
conclusion,  unlike  the  Dutchman's,  is  logically 
drawn  from  his  premises)  that,  since  his  ordi- 
nation, he  has  neither  properly  appreciated 
himself,  nor  been  properly  appreciated  by 
others  ;  and  that  his  judgments  on  all  matters 
theological,  are  entitled  to  far  greater  venera- 
tion than  they  have  ever  received,  either  from 
others,  or  from  himself.  It  is  conceded  with 
entire  frankness,  however,  that  such  a  change 


27 

will  not  very  often  be  observed ;  for  it  implies 
that  the  priest,  up  to  the  time  of  his  ordination 
as  such,  has  placed  upon  his  own  importance 
and  abilities,  an  estimate  susceptible  of  being 
enlarged. 

As  little  ground  is  there  to  pretend  that 
any  material  improvement  of  the  moral  charac- 
ter is  consequent  upon  ordination  to  the  priest- 
hood. Were  such  the  case,  we  should  not  learn, 
from  time  to  time,  of  the  judicial  trial  and  con- 
viction of  clergymen  of  the  Church  of  England 
for  offences  involving  almost  every  grade  and 
variety  of  moral  turpitude.  Were  such  the 
case,  we  should  not  have  seen,  in  the  Episco- 
palian Church  of  our  own  country,  one  bishop 
tried  before  a  tribunal  of  his  peers  (for  offences 
of  which  the  details  may  be  found  in  the  publi- 
cation authorized  by  his  Church ;  I  prefer  to 
omit  those  details  here) — convicted  after  an 
impartial  and  most  patient  investigation,  sus- 
pended from  the  exercise  of  his  ecclesiastical 
functions,  and  living  in  infamy,  unrepentant, 
if  not  contented,  upon  a  pension  assigned  him 
by  the  charity  of  his  injured  diocese  ;  we  should 
not  have  seen  another  bishop  of  the  same 
Church  waited  upon  by  the  disgraceful  notoriety 
of  a    confirmed  habit    of  intoxication ;  nor   a 


28 

third  laying  unauthorized  hands  upon  the  funds 
of  his  own  church,  appropriating  them  to  his 
individual  uses,  and,  when  detected,  pleading 
in  excuse,  an  irresistible  necessity ;  the  result 
of  an  unmanageable  amount  of  debt  contracted 
through  his  zeal  for  the  honor  and  advantage 
of  the  Episcopalian  Church.  I  know  that  un- 
worthy ministers  are  to  be  found  in  all  the  de- 
nominations of  christians,  and  that  the  Episco- 
palian Church  is  possibly  not  more  unfortunate 
than  others  in  that  respect;  but  I  am  not 
aware  that  there  is  any  other  protestant  Church 
in  which  the  infamy  of  a  minister  may  be 
aggravated  by  the  consideration  that  it  super- 
venes after  a  solemn  ceremony  purporting  to 
convey  to  him  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  the  power 
of  remitting  and  of  retaining  the  sins  of  other 
individuals.  If  the  same  form  of  ordination 
exists  in  any  other  Church,  that  fact  will  bring 
such  other  Church  equally  within  the  scope  of 
the  objection  now  made  to  the  Episcopalian ; 
but  the  circumstance  that  the  objection  may  be 
applied  to  both,  cannot  diminish  its  force  as  to 
either.  Episcopalians  say  that  the  treasure  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  may  be  lodged  in  earthen  ves- 
sels ;  that  the  preciousness  of  the  pearl  is  nowise 
diminished  by  the  cheapness  of  the  casket  which 


29 

contains  it.  But  when  the  vessel  is  not  only 
earthen,  but  foul ;  when  the  casket  is  known 
to  contain  dead  men's  bones  and  all  unclean- 
ness,  the  presumption  is  surely  a  reasonable 
one,  that  no  treasure,  no  pearl  is  to  be  found 
within  ;  that  the  owner  of  the  treasure  and  the 
pearl  would  neither  have  chosen  impure  recep- 
tacles for  them  in  the  first  instance,  nor  have 
permitted  his  receptacles,  if  pure  when  selected, 
to  contract  impurity  afterwards.  And  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  Episcopalians  asserts  that  ordi- 
nation conveys  the  Holy  Ghost  alike  to  all  who 
are  ordained,  to  the  vilest,  no  less  than  to  the 
purest ;  the  reasonable  presumption  from  their 
own  doctrine  is,  that  ordination  never  conveys 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  all. 

The  only  mode,  I  apprehend,  in  which  that 
presumption  could  possibly  be  repelled,  would 
be  to  appeal  to  effects  produced  by  Episcopalian 
ministrations,  and  to  show,  by  the  comparison 
of  those  effects  with  the  results  from  the  minis- 
trations of  other  protestants,  that  the  former 
ministrations  so  far  transcend  all  the  others  in 
power  and  efficiency,  as  to  constitute  a  diversity 
absolutely  unaccountable  except  upon  the  sup- 
position that  the  Holy  Ghost  pre-eminently,  if 
not  exclusively,  directs  and  enforces  the  former, 
3* 


30 

and  therefore  may  be  presumed  to  reside,  in 
some  peculiar  manner  or  degree,  in  and  with 
the  clergy  of  the  Episcopalian   Church.     But 
what  will  be  the  result  of  such  an  appeal  ?     If 
the  collective  body  of  the   Church  of  England 
should  be  compared  with  the  collective  body  of 
the  dissenters  in  that  country,  whether  in  re- 
spect to  actual  numbers,  rate  of  increase,  or 
the  piety  and  christian  graces  exhibited  by  the 
professors   of   religion   within  the   Establish- 
ment  and  without  it,  the    comparison  might, 
with  some  reason,  be  objected  to  by  the  Epis- 
copalians, as  incapable  of  affording  any  decisive 
result ;  for  as  well  the  remarkable  growth  and 
spread  of  dissent,  as  the  lukewarmness,  levity, 
worldliness,    irreligion,  immorality,   and  even 
profligacy,  so  notoriously  and  extensively  pre- 
valent   among   the   laity   of    the    established. 
Church,  must  be  referred  in   some  measure,  a 
measure    neither   known  nor  ascertainable,  to 
the  connexion   between  that  Church  and  the 
civil    state,    by   the    operation    of  which   the 
minister  of  every  parish  is  compelled  to  baptize 
all  the  children  brought  to  him  for  the  purpose, 
whether  he  is  satisfied  that  their  religious  edu- 
cation will  be  subsequently  attended  to  or  not. 
Eor,  as  these   children  become,  by  the  act  of 


31 

baptism,  members  of  the  established  Church, 
and  so  continue  until  they  formally  separate 
themselves  from  it  by  uniting  with  some  other 
communion,  the  body  of  the  established  Church 
is  almost  necessarily  composed,  to  a  great 
extent,  of  nominal  members,  who,  having  re- 
ceived little  or  no  education  of  a  religious  kind, 
can  scarcely  be  expected  to  illustrate  the  power 
of  religion  by  their  characters  or  conduct.  Let 
us  turn,  then,  to  our  own  country,  and  make 
the  comparison  between  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
other  protestant  denominations  here  ;  and  first 
in  respect  to  numbers. 

There  is  a  common  story  of  a  juryman  who, 
on  rejoining  his  family  after  a  protracted 
absence,  reported  that  he  had  just  been  de- 
livered from  eleven  of  the  most  obstinate  men 
he  had  ever  conferred  with  in  his  life,  who  had 
kept  him  confined  until  the  adjournment  of  the 
court,  by  perversely  uniting  in  a  wrong  verdict, 
and  pertinaciously  refusing  to  be  convinced  of 
their  error  by  any  argument  or  remonstrance 
he  could  address  to  them.  If  the  whole  Episco- 
pal church  of  the  United  States,  ministers  and 
members,  were  equitably  distributed  as  mission- 
aries among  the  other  protestants,  each  Episco- 


32 

palian  would  find  himself  in  a  predicament 
similar  to  that  of  the  luckless  juryman,  with 
this  difference,  that  his  share  of  obstinate  dis- 
senters from  the  true  church  would  be  forty 
instead  of  eleven,  and  would  compose  a  con- 
gregation nearly  as  large  as  the  average  of 
the  Episcopalian  congregations  throughout  the 
country.  The  Baptists  alone  are  fourteen 
times  as  numerous  as  the  Episcopalians,  while 
the  Methodists  outnumber  them  in  a  still  greater 
degree.  And  if  the  proportion  of  ministers  to 
members  in  the  Episcopal  church  be  compar- 
ed with  the  proportion  of  ministers  to  mem- 
bers in  the  other  protestant  churches,  the 
remarkable  fact  appears,  that  the  Methodist, 
Baptist,  Presbyterian,  and  Congregational  min- 
isters have  congregations  of  one  hundred  and 
forty  members  each,  upon  an  average,  while 
the  average  congregation  of  the  Episcopalian 
minister  contains  only  forty  five  members. 
These  numerical  points  of  the  comparison  will 
be  verified  by  a  reference  to  any  common  sta- 
tistical account  of  the  religious  denominations 
in  the  United  States.  Is  it  credible  that  the 
ministerial  labours  of  priests  who  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost  should  result  in  effects  bearing 
no  higher  proportion  to  those  produced  by  the 


33 

labours  of  ministers  who  have  neither  received 
the  like  gift,  nor  pretend  to  have  received  it, 
than  the  proportion  of  forty  five  to  one  hundred 
and  forty  ? 

When  the  members  of  the  Episcopal  church 
are  compared  with  those  of  the  other  protestant 
churches  in  respect  to  the  manifestation  of  the 
appropriate  graces  and  virtues  of  the  christian 
character,  there  will,  I  presume,  be  no  ground 
for  asserting  that  the  former  possess  any  de- 
cided superiority  over  the  latter.  In  a  sermon 
of  Dr.  Bedell's,  one  of  the  series  upon  the  mes- 
sage to  the  church  of  Laodicea,  (Rev.  iii.  14 — 
21,)  that  divine  has  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  members  of  his  own  church,  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church  of  the  United  States,  were  as 
compared  with  christians  of  other  denomina- 
tions, peculiarly  chargeable  with  the  sins  of 
lukewarmness  in  religion  and  of  worldliness. 
Whether  there  has  subsequently  been  any  ma- 
terial improvement  among  the  Episcopalians  in 
that  regard,  I  do  not  know ;  possibly  there  may 
have  been ;  but  none,  it  may  be  presumed,  so 
remarkable  as  to  require  or  justify  the  conclu- 
sion that  Episcopalian  ministers  are  peculiarly 
endowed  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Whether,  therefore,  we  look  to  the  Episco- 


34 

palian  ministers  themselves,  or  to  the  effects  of 
their  ministry  upon  others,  there  appears  no 
ground  whatever  for  believing  that  Episco- 
pal ordination  conveys  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Next,  as  to  the  power  of  remitting  and  re- 
taining sins.  That  this  power,  even  as  possessed 
by  the  apostles  themselves,  amounted  to  a 
proper  and  absolute  power  of  pardoning  sins, 
or  refusing  to  pardon  them,  has  never  been 
supposed  by  any  protestant.  As  a  judge  is 
invested  with  authority  to  pronounce  the  ac- 
quittal or  the  condemnation  of  those  who  are 
accused  before  him,  yet  the  sentence  he  is  au- 
thorized to  pronounce,  is  not  the  expression  of 
his  own  arbitrary  will,  but  the  voice  of  that 
higher  and  supreme  civil  power  which  enacted 
the  law  he  administers,  and  gave  him  his  autho- 
rity to  administer  it ;  so  the  power  of  remitting 
and  retaining  sins,  even  as  conferred  by  Christ 
upon  his  apostles,  is  understood  to  import  no 
more  than  authority  to  declare  the  sentence  of 
God,  either  forgiving  sins,  or  refusing  to  forgive 
them.  But  whether  the  apostles  received  in 
each  particular  case  a  particular  inspiration, 
immediately  directing  the  sentence  which  in 
that  case  they  were  to  pronounce,  or  whether 
they  were  enabled,   by  their  inspired   faculty 


35 

of  discerning  the  spirits  of  men,  to  know  in 
every  instance  the  sincerity  or  insincerity  of 
repentance,  the  presence  or  the  absence  of  the 
requisite  spiritual  dispositions,  and  thereupon 
proceeded  to  apply  the  general  determination 
of  the  deity  to  the  particular  case,  and  to  de- 
clare, from  their  knowledge  of  that  general 
determination,  that  the  individual  before  them 
was  forgiven  of  God,  or  that  he  remained  un- 
forgiven ;  by  whatever  means  or  process  they 
acquired  their  knowledge  of  the  sinner's  actual 
condition  in  the  sight  of  God,  no  christian  has 
ever  doubted  that  such  knowledge  was  absolute, 
or  that  the  sentence  they  pronounced  was  to 
be  received  with  the  same  implicit  confidence 
as  any  other  of  their  declarations  of  the  divine 
will.  When  St.  Peter  declared  to  Ananias 
and  Sapphira  that  by  their  deceitful  conduct 
they  had  lied  unto  God,  and  proceeded  to  pro- 
nounce the  awful  sentence  of  their  condemna- 
tion, the  divine  ratification  of  that  sentence 
was  immediately  manifested  to  all,  and  could 
by  no  possibility  be  mistaken.  But  in  what 
I  sense  can  it  be  said  that  the  Episcopalian  priest 
receives  the  power  of  remitting  and  retaining 
sins?  If  no  more  is  meant  than  that  he  receives 
the  power  of  inflicting  and  remitting  ecclesias- 


36 

tical  censures,  the  words  of  the  ordaining 
bishop  become  little  better  than  an  absurdity, 
since  in  that  case  their  interpretation  must  be 
this  :  "  Whomsoever  thou  dost  repel  from  the 
communion  table,  he  is  repelled ;  whomsoever 
thou  dost  restore  to  the  privilege  of  commu- 
nion, he  is  restored  ;  on  whomsoever  thou  dost 
inflict,  or  to  whomsoever  thou  dost  remit,  any 
other  ecclesiastical  censure,  on  him  such  cen- 
sure is  inflicted,  or  to  him  it  is  remitted."  If 
it  is  meant  that  the  priest  receives  authority  to 
announce  to  ofi'enders,  that,  if  they  have  truly 
repented  of  their  sins,  those  sins  are  forgiven 
of  God,  and  that  otherwise  they  remain  unfor- 
given ;  such  authority  would  seem  to  be  of 
very  little  importance,  since  the  scripture  itself 
plainly  and  repeatedly  declares  it  to  be  the  will 
of  God  to  forgive  sins,  or  to  retain  them  unfor- 
given,  according  to  the  repentance  or  impeni- 
tence of  the  sinner.  If  it  is  meant  that  the 
priest  receives  authority  to  go  beyond  the  hy- 
pothetical declaration  of  the  Scripture,  and  to 
make  to  particular  ofi'enders  a  positive  and  un- 
qualified announcement  that  their  particular 
sins  are  forgiven  of  God,  or  a  like  announce- 
ment that  God  retains  them  unforgiven,  then 
it  must  also  be  meant  that  every  such  exercise 


37 

of  the  priestly  authority  will  be  "warranted  and 
required  by  a  special  revelation  of  the  divine 
will  to  the  priest,  or  else  that  there  is  imparted 
to  him  by  the  bishop's  ordination,  along  with 
the  power  of  remitting  and  retaining  sins,  or 
rather  as  necessarily  implied  in  that  power,  the 
faculty  of  discerning  the  spirits  of  men,  and 
distinguishing  real  from  simulated  repentance 
with  absolute  and  infallible  certainty.  No 
argument  can  be  needed  to  prove,  that  all  pre- 
tence of  inspiration  co-operating  in  either  mode 
with  the  exercise  of  the  priestly  authority  must 
be  unfounded  and  presumptous,  to  use  the  mild- 
est terms  of  censure  that  can  possibly  be  applied 
to  it.  Whether  the  priest  remits  or  retains  an 
ecclesiastical  censure,  whether  he  declares  to  the 
offender  that  his  sin  has  been  forgiven  of  God, 
or  that  it  is  retained  unforgiven,  the  justice 
and  propriety  of  the  sentence  must  necessarily 
be  brought  into  review  before  the  higher  tribunal 
of  the  offender's  own  conscience;  and  should  the 
judgment  of  that  tribunal  assure  him  that  he 
has  truly  repented  of  his  sin,  or  that  his  heart 
remains  hard  and  impenitent,  however  the 
priestly  sentence  may  have  implied  or  declared 
the  contrary,  dark  must  be  his  ignorance,  and 
gross  indeed  his  superstition,  if  he  continue  to 
4 


38 

attach  to  that  sentence  any  authority  or  im- 
portance whatever.  I  conclude,  then,  that  while 
there  is  evidence  perfectly  satisfactory  to  the 
mind  of  every  christian  that  the  apostles  were 
endued  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  autho- 
rity to  declare,  absolutely  and  without  qualifi- 
cation, the  will  of  God  in  respect  to  the  remission 
and  retention  of  sins,  there  is  no  evidence  what- 
ever that  either  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  any  such 
authority  to  declare  the  remission  and  retention 
of  sins,  is  conveyed  to  the  Episcopalian  priest 
by  the  ordination  of  the  bishop.  The  form  of 
ordination  is  therefore,  to  my  apprehension, 
irreverent  and  blasphemous. 


39 


III.  I  cannot  believe  that,  in  Baptism,  infants 
are  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

That  this  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  In  the  baptis- 
mal service,  the  priest,  after  performing  the  act 
of  baptism,  thus  addresses  those  who  are  pre- 
sent :  "  Seeing  now,  dearly  beloved  brethren, 
that  this  child  is  regenerate,  and  grafted  into 
the  body  of  Christ's  Church,  let  us  give  thanks 
unto  Almighty  God  for  these  benefits."  And 
after  repeating  the  Lord's  Prayer,  he  continues 
his  address  to  the  Deity  in  these  words  ;  "  We 
yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father, 
that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this 
infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for 
thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate 
him  into  thy  holy  church." 

It  is  conceded  on  all  hands  that  no  express 
authority  for  this  doctrine  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Scripture,  inasmuch  as  the  Scripture  contains 
no  positive  proof  that,  in  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tles, infants  were  baptized  at  all.  Supposing 
it  however  to  be  rendered,  by  other  considera-  , 
tions,  probable,  or  even  certain,  that  the  baptism 
of  infants  has  the  authority  of  apostolic  usage, 


40 

Still  it  remains  to  be  shown,  that  when  the 
Scripture  speaks  of  baptism  as  connected  with 
regeneration,  the  baptism  of  infants  is  reason- 
ably to  be  included  within  the  scope  of  the 
scriptural  words;  which  can  no  otherwise  be 
shown,  than  by  showing  a  reasonable  probability 
that  infants,  or  persons  baptized  during  infancy, 
as  well  as  persons  baptized  in  adult  age,  were 
in  the  mind  of  the  inspired  writer  when  those 
words  were  written. 

To  support  the  general  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  the  words  of  St.  Paul  in  the 
Epistle  to  Titus  (iii.  5,)  are  mainly  if  not  ex- 
clusively relied  upon.  The  apostle  there,  speak- 
ing of  the  Deity,  says,  ''not  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  accord- 
ing to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing 
of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  The  question  therefore  is,  whether 
these  words  declare  baptism  to  be,  in  respect  to 
infants  as  well  as  adults,  a  washing  of  regenera- 
tion, and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  Epistle  to  Titus,  who  had  been  left  by 
St.  Paul  in  Crete,  contains  the  apostle's  direc- 
tions to  him  for  the  government  and  instruction 
of  the  churches  in  that  island.  Though  great 
uncertainty  exists   as   to   the   time  when  this 


41 

epistle  was  written,  (some  commentators  refer- 
ring it  to  the  56th  year  of  the  christian  era,others 
to  the  63d,  64th,  or  65th,)  here  are  two  points 
connected  with  the  epistle,  in  which  there  is  a 
very  general  concurrence  of  opinions :  first, 
that  St.  Paul,  who,  according  to  his  own  decla- 
ration in  Romans  xv.  20,  and  2  Corinth,  x. 
16,  strove  to  preach  the  Gospel,  not  where 
Christ  was  named,  lest  he  should  build  upon 
another  man's  foundation,  and  not  to  boast  in 
another  man's  line  of  things  ready  made  to 
his  hand,  would  not  have  undertaken  the  regu- 
lation of  the  churches  in  Crete,  unless  they 
had  been  formed  of  converts  made  by  his  own 
labors  in  the  Gospel,  and  consequently  that 
those  churches  were  formed  of  such  con- 
verts ;  secondly,  that  he  would  not  have  left 
them  for  any  considerable  period  without  a 
provision  for  their  government,  discipline, 
and  regular  instruction,  and  consequently 
that  this  epistle  to  Titus,  making  such  provi- 
sion, was  written  within  a  short  time,  pro- 
bably within  a  few  months,  after  the  apostle 
had  himself  left  Crete.  If  the  conclusion  upon 
those  points  be  taken  as  correct,  (and  it  is 
obviously  reasonable)  it  becomes  almost  impos- 
sible to  believe  that  the  apostle  referred  to  or 
4*= 


42 

had  in  his  mind  the  baptism  of  infants,  even 
if  infants,  as  well  as  adults,  had  been  baptized 
by  him  in  Crete  a  short  time  before.  For, 
after  directing  Titus  to  put  the  christians  of 
Crete  in  mind  "  to  be  subject  to  principalities 
and  powers,  to  obey  magistrates,  to  be  ready 
to  every  good  work,  to  speak  evil  of  no  man, 
to  be  no  brawlers,  but  gentle,  showing  all  meek- 
ness unto  all  men,"  he  proceeds  to  assign  the 
reason  for  requiring  such  exercise  of  forbear- 
ance, gentleness,  and  meekness,  as  follows; 
'<  For  we  ourselves  also  were  sometimes  foolish, 
disobedient,  deceived,  serving  divers  lusts  and 
pleasures,  living  in  malice  and  envy,  hateful, 
and  hating  one  another.  But  after  that  the 
kindness  and  love  of  God  our  Saviour  toward 
man  appeared,  not  by  works  of  righteousness 
which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy 
he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  That  St. 
Paul,  in  giving  instructions  how  the  christians 
of  Crete  ought  to  deport  themselves  towards 
the  gentiles  around  them,  should  have  had  any 
reference  to  infants  baptized  only  a  short  time 
before,  as  to  whom  such  instructions  could  be 
only  a  prospective  provision  for  the  period  when 
they  should  reach  years  of  maturity,  is  obviously 


43 

somewhat  improbable ;  but  the  improbability  of 
any  reference  to  such  infants,  or  indeed  to  any 
persons  baptized  in  infancy,  is  very  greatly  in- 
creased, rising  indeed  almost  to  an  impossibility, 
when  we  consider  the  reason  assigned  for  the 
required  deportment  of  the  Cretan  christians 
towards  the  gentiles.  Por  though  the  apostle, 
here  as  in  other  places,  in  order  to  mitigate  the 
severity  of  his  censure,  speaks  of  himself  as  if 
identified  with  those  whose  former  character 
and  conduct  he  condemns,  (applying  to  himself 
and  his  Cretan  converts  the  personal  pronouns 
we  and  us,)  he  could  not  possibly  mean  to  in- 
clude in  that  censure  for  past  depravity  of  life 
those  who  had  been  baptized  in  infancy  but  a 
short  time  before:  and  it  is  very  improbable 
that  he  could  have  intended  to  apply  such  a 
censure  to  any  persons  whatever,  who  had  re- 
ceived christian  baptism  in  their  infancy ;  for 
it  is  very  improbable  that  any  such  persons,  the 
children  of  christian  parents,  should,  after  their 
baptism,  have  become  so  depraved  as  to  justify 
the  application  of  such  a  censure,  and  yet  be 
found,  at  the  date  of  the  apostle's  letter  to 
Titus,  still  remaining  among  the  christians  for 
whose  benefit  the  directions  contained  in  that 
letter  were  intended.     Add  to  this,  that  the 


44 

persons  spoken  of  as  saved  by  the  washing  of 
regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
are,  according  to  the  most  natural  construction 
of  the  apostle's  language,  exclusively  those  who, 
prior  to  their  baptism,  had  been  thus  depraved 
in  character  and  conduct;  and  consequently, 
according  to  the  most  natural  construction  of 
the  apostle's  language,  the  words  "  the  washing 
of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"  could  not  have  been  intended  to  describe 
or  be  applicable  to  the  baptism  of  infants.  Such 
is  also  the  opinion  of  Rosenmuller,  who,  in  his 
commentary  upon  those  words,  says,  "  It  is  to 
be  noted  that  Paul  speaks  of  the  baptism  of 
adult  persons,  who  at  that  period  were  almost 
solely  baptized." 

If  we  look  to  the  characters  and  conduct  of 
persons  baptized  in  infancy  for  any  evidence 
of  spiritual  regeneration  by  such  baptism,  we 
shall  look  in  vain.  Should  a  given  number 
of  children  of  Episcopalian  parents,  who  have 
caused  them  to  be  baptized  during  their  infancy, 
be  compared  with  an  equal  number  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Baptist  parents,  who  regard  such  bap- 
tism as  a  blasphemous  desecration  of  one  of  the 
sacraments  appointed  by  Christ,  no  difference 
would   probably   be   perceptible   between   the 


45 

baptized  and  the  unbaptized.  We  should  pro- 
bably find  that  all  of  them  had  been  alike  in- 
nocent during  infancy,  alike  frolicsome  and 
mischievous  during  childhood,  and  alike  eager 
in  the  pursuit  of  pleasure,  and  careless  about 
the  concerns  of  religion,  during  the  period  of 
youth ;  and,  upon  searching  the  records  of  the 
courts  appointed  for  the  trial  of  criminals,  we 
should  probably  discover  that  as  many  of  the 
regenerated  children  of  Episcopalians,  as  of  the 
imregenerate  children  of  Baptists,  had  been 
ultimately  hanged. 


46 


IV.  I  think  that  some  of  the  forms  commonly 
observed  in  the  2^ublie  service  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  if  they  do  not  encourage  superstition,  at 
the  least  are  trifling  and  ridiculous,  and  there- 
fore unsuitable  to  the  solemn  character  of  the 
Christian  tv  or  ship, 

I  refer  here  to  the  peculiar  dress  commonly 
worn  by  Episcopalian  priests  while  engaged  in 
performing  the  public  offices  of  religion,  and  to 
the  change  made  in  that  dress  during  the  pro- 
gress of  the  service. 

My  objection  to  the  official  costume  of  the 
Episcopalian  priest  is  not  that  which  I  have 
known  some  persons  to  urge,  that  it  assimilates 
the  wearer  to  an  ancient  lady,  and  therefore 
renders  him  ridiculous ;  for,  in  that  view,  I  can- 
not but  think  that  the  garb,  instead  of  being 
liable  to  objection,  is  often  eminently  appropri- 
ate ;  but  one  ground  of  my  objection  is  that  the 
feeling  of  the  ludicrous  is  excited  at  a  time  and 
place  in  which  none  but  thoughts  and  emotions 
of  a  solemn  description  ought  to  occupy  the 
mind.  That  the  view  of  an  Episcopalian  priest 
in  his  priestly  array  does  excite  the  feeling  of 
the  ludicrous,  until  custom  has  rendered  the 


47 

spectacle  familiar,  and  worn  the  feeling  away, 
I  suppose  is  undeniable.  But  the  same  feeling 
is  perhaps  still  more  powerfully  aroused,  when, 
at  a  particular  stage  of  the  service,  the  priest 
is  observed  to  retire  from  the  view  of  the  con- 
gregation, and,  after  an  absence  of  a  few  min- 
|utes,  to  emerge  from  his  retirement  and  resume 
his  station,  equipped  in  a  suit  of  robes  diiferent 
from  the  first.  The  amused  fancy  of  the  spec- 
tator, who  has  not  been  rendered,  by  long  usage, 
capable  of  encountering  the  sudden  transforma- 
tion with  composure  or  indifference,  instantly 
wings  its  way  to  the  theatre,  as  the  only  place 
(except  the  Roman  Catholic  church)  where  a 
similar  spectacle  can  be  enjoyed ;  and  if  the 
erratic  fancy  should  happen  to  possess  some  en- 
dowment of  Greek,  it  may  very  possibly  return 
from  the  excursion  in  perplexed  meditation  upon 
the  circumstance  that  the  Greeks  gave  to  the 
play-actor,  because  it  was  his  vocation  to  pre- 
sent simulated  characters  and  feelings,  the 
same  title  which  the  Founder  of  Christianity  so 
often  applied  to  the  scribes  and  pharisees ;  a 
class  of  persons  noted  for  the  peculiarity,  among 
others,  of  making  broad  their  phylacteries,  and 
enlarging  the  borders  of  their  garments. 
It  appears  to  me,  however,  that  other  and 


48 

more  serious  objections  may  be  urged  against 
the  distinctive  costume  of  the  Episcopalian 
clergy.  That  costume  was  undeniably  adopted, 
with  some  modifications,  from  the  ecclesiastical 
garb  of  the  Roman  Catholic  priesthood,  who 
derived  theirs  either  from  the  priests  of  heathen 
Rome,  or  from  those  of  the  Jewish  religion. 
From  the  readiness  of  the  christian  clergy  in 
ancient  times  to  borrow  from  either  paganism 
or  Judaism  any  forms  or  ceremonies  which  they 
thought  adapted  to  decorate  or  recommend  their 
own  system  of  religion,  it  may  be  impossible 
now  to  ascertain  from  which  of  the  two  sources 
the  Roman  Catholics  derived  the  notion  and 
the  fashion  of  their  peculiar  ecclesiastical  garb. 
Nor  do  I  think  that  certainty  upon  that  point 
is  at  all  material :  for  I  can  discern  no  ground 
whatever  for  supposing  that  the  Deity  would  be 
more  likely  to  regard  an  ecclesiastical  dress 
with  favor,  because  adopted  from  a  system  of 
forms,  ceremonies  and  sacrifices,  which,  though 
instituted  by  himself,  had  been  instituted  for  a 
temporary  purpose  only,  and  had  accordingly, 
after  serving  the  appointed  purpose  and  lasting 
the  appointed  time,  been  utterly  and  forever 
abolished,  not  only  by  his  own  express  declara- 
tion, but  by  the  total  destruction  of  the  Temple 


49 

and  city  in  which  alone  those  forms  and  cere 
monies  were  appointed  to  be  observed,  and  those 
sacrifices  to  be  offered.  The  garb  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  priest  appears  to  me  neither  better  if 
derived  from  the  Jews,  nor  worse  if  derived  from 
the  pagans;  but  in  my  judgment  there  was 
obvious  impropriety  in  its  original  adoption 
from  either,  if  the  sole  purpose  of  such  adoption 
was,  as  I  believe  it  to  have  been,  to  assimilate 
the  ministers  of  Christ  to  the  pagan  or  Jewish 
priqsts,  at  a  time  when  paganism  was  dominant, 
and  Judaism,  notwithstanding  the  fearful  calami- 
ties by  which  the  Jewish  nation  had  been  visited, 
was  still  powerful :  and  I  think  there  would  be 
the  same  impropriety  in  retaining  it  at  the 
present  day,  if  the  relative  circumstances  of 
paganism,  Judaism  and  Christianity  had  re- 
mained unchanged.  But  those  circumstances 
have  long  been  reversed ;  paganism  is  extinct 
in  the  countries  of  Europe  where  it  once  held 
sway ;  Judaism  withering  under  the  divine  male- 
diction pronounced  upon  its  adherents,  is  every- 
where powerless  and  despised ;  and  Christianity 
has  long  been  the  professed  religion  of  the  most 
enlightened  and  powerful  nations  of  the  earth. 
I  think,  therefore,  that  the  original  force  of 
the  objection  to  the  garb  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
5 


50 

clergy,  on  account  of  its  derivation  from  pagan- 
ism or  Judaism,  has  been  greatly  diminished, 
though  by  no  means  entirely  destroyed ;  since 
no  length  of  time  or  change  of  circumstances 
can  ever,  in  my  opinion,  render  it  entirely 
proper  for  Christianity  to  wear  the  livery  either 
of  a  false  religion  which  has  become  extinct,  or 
of  a  religion  which,  though  of  divine  institution, 
has  according  to  christian  belief,  been  super- 
seded by  the  same  divine  authority  which  estab- 
lished it.  And  if  it  was  improper  for  the  early 
christians  to  adopt  their  ecclesiastical  dress 
from  the  pagans  or  the  Jews,  I  cannot  under- 
stand how  it  should  be  proper  for  the  Episcopa- 
lians to  adopt  theirs  from  the  Roman  Catholics, 
whom  they,  in  common  with  the  other  protest- 
ants,  profess  to  regard  as  a  corrupt  and  idolatrous 
church.  Opinions  may  vary  as  to  the  degree 
and  importance  of  the  impropriety;  but  that 
some  impropriety  must  exist  in  the  case  can 
scarcely  be  doubted  by  christians  who  recollect 
that  St.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  pro- 
nounced it  disgraceful  for  a  man  to  pray  or 
prophesy  with  his  head  covered,  or  to  wear  long 
hair,  (1  Corinth,  xi.  4, 14,)  though  it  is  obvious 
that  these  practices  must  have  been  in  their 
own  nature  things  indifferent,  and  therefore 


51 

could  only  have  been  disgraceful  by  reason  of 
the  customs  and  particular  modes  of  thinking, 
which  at  that  time  prevailed  in  that  country. 
The  commentators  in  general  inform  us  that  it 
was  ignominious  for  a  free  man  to  wear  a  cover- 
ing upon  his  head,  because  such  a  covering  was 
the  badge  of  servitude,  or  because  criminals 
about  to  undergo  capital  punishment  had  their 
heads  muffled  up  by  the  executioner,  or  perhaps 
for  both  those  reasons ;  and  that  for  a  man  to 
wear  long  hair  was  the  common  and  notorious 
sign  of  infamous  effeminacy.  Some  persons 
may  prefer  the  explanation  given  by  Yalpy  and 
others  of  the  censure  passed  by  St.  Paul  upon 
the  practice  of  praying  or  prophesying  with  the 
head  covered;  an  explanation  which  renders 
that  censure  still  more  effectual  to  support  our 
present  argument.  Yalpy 's  note  is  as  follows  : 
"The  Jews  used  to  pray  with  the  head  covered. 
The  Corinthians,  though  converted  to  Christian- 
ity, conformed  to  the  practice,  out  of  regard 
to  Pharisaical  traditions,  and  in  imitation  of  the 
customs  prevailing  in  the  synagogues.  The 
apostle  therefore  remonstrates  against  it." 
Whether  the  Jews  were  at  that  time  accus- 
tomed to  pray  with  the  head  covered,  is  repre- 
sented by  Rosenmuller  as  doubtful :  but  there 


52 

can  be  no  doubt  that  such  was  the  practice  of 
the  gentiles.  Why  should  the  Episcopalians 
have  adopted  from  the  Roman  Catholics,  and 
to  this  day  retained,  an  ecclesiastical  dress 
wholly  different  from  any  dress  commonly 
worn  by  men,  either  in  this  country,  or  in 
England  since  the  period  of  the  reformation  ? 
Can  any  reason  be  assigned  except  an  undue 
anxiety  to  preserve  some  visible  and  palpable 
sign  of  relationship  to  that  great  community  of 
idolaters  called  the  Roman  Catholic  church? 

My  objection,  however,  to  the  dress  of  the 
Episcopalian  priests,  is  neither  entirely  nor 
even  mainly  founded  upon  its  derivation  from 
the  Roman  Catholic  church.  I  object  to  it 
chiefly  because  I  cannot  find  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  New  Testament  any  indication  that  in  the 
earliest  period  of  Christianity  the  ministers  of 
the  Gospel  were,  upon  any  occasion,  or  in  any 
place,  distinguished  from  other  christians  by 
any  peculiarity  of  dress,  and  because  I  think 
that  the  assumption  by  christian  ministers  of  a 
distinctive  dress,  to  be  worn  only  upon  parti- 
cular occasions,  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit- 
ual and  catholic  character  of  the  christian 
religion,  and  tends  to  the  encouragement  of 
superstition. 


53 

I  cannot  find  that  either  Christ  or  his  apostles 
ever  wore  any  other  than  the  common  dress  of 
the  time  and  country.  The  coat  of  Christ,  we 
are  informed,  was  without  seam,  woven  from  the 
top  throughout,  (John  xix.  23;)  particulars 
which  the  Evangelist  details  for  the  mere  pur- 
pose of  accounting  for  the  fact  that  lots  were 
cast  for  it  by  the  soldiers  who  attended  the 
cruciixion.  I  find  also  that  St.  Paul  possessed 
a  cloak  ;  but  it  could  not  have  been  an  ecclesi- 
astical garment,  since,  either  from  convenience 
or  by  accident,  he  left  it  behind  him  at  Troas. 
(2  Tim.  iv.  13.)  There  is  indeed  a  tradition, 
preserved  by  Eusebius  in  his  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, book  Y.,  ch.  24,  as  delivered  by  Poly  crates, 
bishop  of  Ephesus,  towards  the  close  of  the 
second  century, that  St.  John  wore  the  sacerdotal 
plate  (ro  Ti^ctoxov) ;  and  it  may  be  presumed  that 
a  plate  bearing  some  resemblance  to  that  which 
the  high  priest  of  the  Jews  wore  upon  the  front 
of  his  mitre,  (Exodus  xxviii.  36,  37,  38,)  was 
intended  by  the  tradition.  Cruse,  the  translator 
of  Eusebius,  in  a  note  upon  this  tradition,  ob- 
serves :  "  The  sacerdotal  plate  here  mentioned, 
is  not  to  be  understood  of  the  Jewish  priesthood, 
for  John  had  no  connexion  with  that.  It  is 
probable  that  he,  with  others,  .-wore   a   badge 


54 

like  tMs,  as  the  priests  of  a  better  covenant." 
The  great  majority  of  the  protestant  writers, 
however,  entertained  a  very  different  opinion 
from  that  expressed  by  the  translator  in  the 
last  sentence  of  his  note.  They  think  it  alto- 
gether improbable  that  St.  John  wore  any  such 
plate,  and  without  scruple  or  hesitation  reject 
the  tradition  that  he  did  so,  as  no  better  than 
an  idle  legend,  if  designed  to  be  understood  in 
the  literal  sense ;  though  some  of  them  prefer 
to  assign  a  figurative  meaning  to  the  words  of 
Poly  crates,  and  to  regard  them  as  importing  no 
more  than  that  St.  John  held  the  same  authority 
and  estimation  among  the  christians  of  Asia, 
and  the  same  superiority  to  other  ministers, 
which  the  high  priest  possessed  among  the  Jews. 
Those  who  may  think  the  matter  worthy  of 
farther  examination,  can  refer  to  Dr.  N.  Lard- 
ner's  Works,  vol.  4,  p.  448-9,  (London  edi- 
tion of  1838,)  and  to  Routh's  Reliquioe  Sacrae, 
vol.  1,  p.  381-2,  (Oxford  edition  of  1814.)  A 
similar  tradition  preserved  by  Epiphanius  con- 
cerning St.  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  is 
obviously  entitled  to  even  less  respect;  for 
Epiphanius  lived  and  wrote  at  a  period  much 
later  than  that  of  Polycrates,  and  his  story  is 
burthened  with  additional  improbabilities  from 


55 

the  circumstance  tliat  it  relates  to  a  bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  who  lived  in  that  city,  and  died 
there  while  the  Temple  was  yet  standing,  so  that 
it  cannot  be  supposed  the  fanatical  Jews  would 
have  permitted  him  to  assume  and  wear  a  badge 
which  belonged  exclusively  to  the  sacred  cos- 
tume of  their,  high  priest.  These  legends 
cannot,  I  think,  furnish  any  support  to  the  idea 
that  the  apostles  of  Christ  were  distinguished 
by  dress,  or  by  any  external  badge  whatever, 
from  their  fellow  christians. 

Indeed  the  distinction  of  christian  ministers 
from  other  christians  by  a  peculiar  dress,  to  be 
worn  only  at  certain  times,  appears  to  me  to 
involve  an  obvious  forgetfulness  or  disregard,  so 
far  as  relates  to  the  priesthood  and  priestly 
ministrations,  of  the  great  and  characteristic 
diflference  between  Christianity  and  other  sys- 
tems of  religion.  Judaism  and  all  known 
forms  of  paganism  have  been  local  religions  ; 
the  functions  of  their  priests  were  only  to  be 
performed  at  particular  places  and  at  prescribed 
times  ;  the  priestly  robes  were  only  to  be  worn 
in  those  places  and  at  those  times ;  and  it  gen- 
erally happened  in  the  case  of  the  pagan  priest, 
and  but  too  frequently  in  the  case  of  the  Jew- 
ish, that   all   trace  of  his  religious   character 


56 

disappeared  when  he  laid  his  robes  aside.  Dur- 
ing the  whole  period  that  Julius  Caesar  was 
engaged  in  seeking  and  acquiring  the  fame  of 
being  the  most  dissolute  man  in  Rome,  he  was 
a  priest  of  the  Roman  religion ;  during  the 
whole  period  that,  at  the  head  of  Roman  ar- 
mies, he  was  engaged  in  bearing  through  the 
world  the  terror  of  the  Roman  name,  and  the 
still  greater  terror  of  his  own,  he  was  the  su- 
preme head  of  the  Roman  hierarchy,  the  high 
pontiff  of  the  Roman  state.  This  rt.  reverend 
clergyman  lived  and  died,  as  is  well  known,  be- 
fore Christianity  had  dawned  upon  the  world ; 
yet  the  christian  bishops  of  Rome,  who  subse- 
quently assumed  his  priestly  designation,  if  not 
also  the  fashion  of  his  priestly  robes,  might 
have  claimed  him,  with  far  more  propriety  than 
they  claimed  the  humble  fisherman  of  Galilee, 
as  their  great  ecclesiastical  predecessor  and 
model.  His  catholic  ambition,  for  which  the 
empire  of  the  whole  world  was  not  too  vast  an 
object,  his  surpassing  dexterity  and  success  in 
political  intrigue,  indeed  nearly  every  part  of 
his  majestic  and  commanding  character,  might 
well  attract  the  veneration  of  such  ecclesiastics 
as  those  who  have  too  often  filled  the  episcopal 
throne  of  christian  Rome  :  and  doubtless  no  one 


57 

of  them  ever  wore  the  pontifical  robes,  and  dis- 
charged the  priestly  office  with  more  appropri- 
ate dignity  and  grace,  than  Julius  Csesar  did 
when,  at  the  close  of  some  victorious  military 
I  campaign,  in  which  tens  of  thousands  of  human 
I  beings  had   been  sacrificed  on  the  bloody  altar 
I  of  his  insatiable  ambition,  he  returned  to  head 
I  some  sacred  procession   through  the  streets    of 
I  Rome.     The  Jewish  priests  differed  from  Julius 
i  Caesar  and  his  brethren  of  the  pontifical  college, 
!in  being  the  ministers  of  a  true  and  not  of  a 
false  religion  ;  but  their  ministrations  were  not 
less  confined   to   appointed   times,  while   they 
were   subjected  to  even   greater   restriction  in 
respect  of  place.  Christianity,  on  the  contrary, 
has  nothing  of  the  local   and  restricted,  either 
in  its  spirit  or   its  ministrations.     The  whole 
human  race  are  the  objects   of  its  care,  the 
whole  earth   is   its  temple,  and  all  times  and 
places  are  appropriate  for  the  ministrations  of 
its  priesthood.     The  christian  minister  is  such 
no   less,  and  no   less  engaged  in   discharging 
the  proper   duties  of  his   office,  while  visiting 
the  sick,  the  imprisoned,  and  the  afflicted,  while 
praying   in   the   midst  of  his    own   family,  or 
while   leading   the  minds   of  the  worldly  and 
the  careless,  by  conversation  in  the  parlour  or 


58 

in  tlie  street,  to  reflect  upon  the  subject  of  reli- 
gion, than  while  occupied  with  the  public  ser- 
vice in  the  church  on  the  Lord's  day.  Why  then 
should  he  wear  a  peculiar  dress  in  some  of  his 
ministrations,  and  not  in  others  ?  Are  the  more 
public  of  those  ministrations  more  eminently  sa- 
cred than  the  rest?  If  they  are  not,  (and  certainly 
it  is  difficult  to  imagine  any  reason  why  they 
should  be)  the  peculiar  dress  of  the  minister 
ought,  it  should  seem,  either  to  be  worn  every- 
where and  at  all  times,  or  not  to  be  worn  at  all. 
I  think  that  it  is  best  for  christian  ministers 
to  follow  the  example  of  the  apostles,  and  to 
wear  no  peculiar  dress  or  badge  of  distinction 
at  all.  They  do  not  need  any  for  the  purpose 
of  keeping  their  sacred  character  present  to 
their  own  remembrance,  for  they  never  at  any 
time  forget  it,  and  are  rarely  indeed  chargea- 
ble with  neglecting  to  follow  the  example  of 
St.  Paul  in  magnifying  his  own  office.  Other 
men  are  sufficiently  apprised  of  the  presence  of 
a  priest,  when  they  see  him  engaged  in  per- 
forming the  appropriate  duties  of  the  priest- 
hood ;  and  they  need  not  to  be  apprised  of  it 
at  any  other  time.  Not  only  am  I  unable  to 
discern  how  a  peculiar  ecclesiastical  habit, 
whether  worn  continually  or  only  worn  upon 


59 

particular   occasions,  can  ^subserve   any  useful 
purpose,  but  I  think  I  can""plainly  discern  that, 
when  worn  but  occasionally,  as   it  is  worn  by 
the  Episcopalian  priest,  it  tends  to   foster   su- 
perstition, both  in  the  wearer  himself,  and  in 
the   members  of    his  congregation.     When  a 
portion  of  the  offices  performed  by  the  christ- 
ian minister  are  visibly  severed  and  distinguished 
from  the  rest  by  the  circumstance  that  during  the 
performance  of  that  portion,  the  minister  always 
wears  a  peculiar  dress,  that  circumstance  tends 
obviously,  in  my  opinion,  to  create'an  impression 
that  the  offices  so  distinguished  are  superior  in 
sanctity  to  the  others.     Nor  is  such  a  tendency 
operative  upon  those  alone  who  regard  the  pecu- 
liar dress  as  something  venerable  and  imposing  in 
itself;  for  those  who  regard  the  dress  as  ridi- 
culous are  at  the  same  time  perfectly  conscious 
that  the  priest  does  not  wear  it  for  the  purpose 
of  being  ridiculed.     I   have  already  intimated 
that  I  could  discern  no  reason  for  believing  one 
part  of  the  priestly  ministrations  to  be,  in  their 
own  nature,  more  sacred  than  another.  But  the 
particular   ministrations  during  which  the  ec- 
clesiastical  dress  is  worn   are  commonly  per- 
formed in  the  church  and  on  the  Lord's  day ; 
and  thoucrh  none  of   them   are,  even   in  the 


60 

opinion  of  Episcopalians,  invalid  if  performed 
elsewhere  than  in  the  church,  or  on  another 
than  the  Lord's  day,  yet  it  is  quite  possible 
that  in  their  opinion  some  superior  sanctity  is 
to  be  attributed  to  those  particular  offices  by 
reason  of  superior  sanctity  in  the  day  or  place, 
or  both,  in  which  they  are  usually  performed ; 
and  that  consequently  the  performance  of  them 
is  appropriately  distinguished  by  the  priest's 
wearing  at  the  time,  a  peculiar  dress.  The 
sanctity  of  the  Lord's  day  cannot,  I  think, 
be  the  source  from  which  the  Episcopalians 
themselves  would  choose  to  derive  any  supe- 
rior sanctity  of  the  ministrations  usually  per- 
formed on  that  day ;  for  I  presume  they  would 
not  admit  that  the  service  in  their  church  on 
the  festivals  of  Christmas  and  Good  Friday, 
or  indeed  on  any  festival  or  other  day  what- 
ever, is  inferior  in  sanctity  to  the  like  service 
performed  on  the  Lord's  day.  And  on  that 
point  I  should  concur  with  them  in  opinion  ; 
for  though  the  Lord's  day  may  be  peculiarly 
appropriate  for  the  public  offices  of  the  christ- 
ian worship,  and  consequently  the  neglect  to 
perform  them  on  that  day  may  be  peculiarly 
censurable,  I  cannot  understand  how  the  sanc- 
tity of  the   offices  themselves   should   be   di- 


minislied  by  performing  them  on  another  day. 
The  only  other  conceivable  source  of  superior 
sanctity  in  the  ministrations  in  question,  must 
consequently  be  the  holiness  of  the  place  in 
which  they  are  usually  performed  ;  that  is,  the 
church.  And  that  from  this  source  Episcopa- 
lians do  actually  derive  some  part  of  the  sanc- 
tity which  they,  in  common  with  all  other 
christians,  attribute  to  the  offices  of  the 
christian  worship,  I  infer  as  well  from  the 
I  terms  of  veneration  in  which  they  commonly 
speak  of  their  churches,  as  from  the  words  of 
Hooker,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  book  V. 
sect.  16.  "  Our  opinion,"  he  says,  "concern- 
ing the  force  and  virtue  which  such  places 
have,  is,  I  trust,  without  any  blemish  or  stain 
of  heresy.  Churches  receive,  as  everything 
else,  their  chief  perfection  from  the  end 
whereunto  they  serve.  Which  end  being  the 
public  worship  of  God,  they  are,  in  this  con- 
sideration, houses  of  greater  dignity  than  any 
provided  for  meaner  purposes.  For  which 
cause  they  seem  after  a  sort  even  to  mourn, 
as  being  injured  and  defrauded  of  their  right, 
when  places  not  sanctified,  as  they  are,  pre- 
vent them  unnecessarily  in  that  pre-eminence 
and  honour.  Whereby  also  it  doth  come  to 
6 


m 

pass,  that  the  service  of  God  hath  not  then 
itself  such  perfection  of  grace  and  comeliness, 
as  when  the  dignity  of  place  which  it  wisheth 
for  doth  concur.  Again,  albeit  the  true  wor- 
ship of  God  be  to  God  in  itself  acceptable, 
who  respecteth  not  so  much  in  what  place  as 
with  what  affection  he  is  served  ;  and  therefore 
Moses  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  Job  on  the 
dunghill,  Ezekias  in  bed,  Jeremy  in  mire,  Jonas 
in  the  whale,  Daniel  in  the  den,  the  children 
in  the  furnace,  the  thief  on  the  cross,  Peter 
and  Paul  in  prison  calling  unto  God,  were 
heard,  as  St.  Basil  noteth ;  manifest,  notwith- 
standing, it  is,  that  the  very  majesty  and 
holiness  of  the  place  where  God  is  worshipped, 
hath  in  regard  of  us  great  virtue,  force  and 
efficacy,  for  that  it  serveth  as  a  sensible  help 
to  stir  up  devotion  ;  and  in  that  respect,  no 
doubt,  bettereth  even  our  holiest  and  best 
actions  in  this  kind.  As  therefore  we  every- 
where exhort  all  men  to  worship  God;  even 
so,  for  performance  of  this  service  by  the 
people  of  God  assembled,  we  think  not  any 
place  so  good  as  the  church,  neither  any  exhor- 
tation so  fit  as  that  of  David,  « 0  worship 
the  Lord  in  the  beauty  of  holiness.'  "  Hook- 
er's opinion  respecting  the  sanctity  of  churches 


63 

(at  least  those  belonging  to  the  English  Estab- 
lishment) is  here  very  plainly  expressed.  He 
speaks  of  them  as  places  sanctified,  and  thinks 
that  our  holiest  and  best  actions  in  the  worship 
of  God  are  bettered  by  the  majesty  and  holi- 
ness of  the  place  (that  is,  the  church)  where 
such  worship  is  ofi"ered.  And  from  the  fre- 
quency and  confidence  with  which  Episcopalians 
in  general,  and  Episcopalian  priests  in  parti- 
cular, apply  to  their  churches  the  titles  which 
in  the  Scripture  are  appropriated  to  the  Taber- 
nacle and  the  Temple,  there  is  little  ground  for 
suspecting  that  the  sentiments  of  Hooker  would 
by  any  of  them  be  regarded  as  at  all  over- 
strained or  exceptionable.  In  those  sentiments, 
however,  I  cannot  concur.  I  cannot  believe 
that  any  sanctity  whatever  belongs  to  the 
Episcopalian  churches,  or  to  any  other  build- 
ings used  for  the  purposes  of  christian  worship. 
Whence  is  such  sanctity  to  be  derived  ?  Man 
cannot  confer  it ;  and  what  reason  is  there  for 
believing  that  it  is  conferred  by  the  Deity  ?  I 
cannot  find,  in  any  presumed  analogy  of  the 
Jewish  tabernacle  or  temple  to  the  christian 
church,  any  ground  for  the  inference  that  God 
sanctifies  the  latter  as  he  sanctified  each  of 
the   former.     To  my  apprehension,  the  only 


64 

real  analogy  consists  in  the  circumstance  that 
the  christian  church  is  a  structure  appropriated 
to  the  worship  and  service  of  God,  and  that 
such  also  were  the  tabernacle  and  the  temple  ; 
while  the  difference  in  other  respects  is  so  great, 
and  to  my  own  reflection  so  obvious,  that  I 
cannot  comprehend  by  what  process  even  Epis- 
copalians could  have  attained  the  capability  of 
overlooking  or  disregarding  it.  God  himself 
expressly  commanded  the  erection  of  both  the 
tabernacle  and  the  temple,  and  gave  particu- 
lar directions  concerning  the  form  and  struc- 
ture of  each ;  he  promised  to  honour  and  sanctify 
each  by  making  it  his  chosen  and  peculiar 
habitation  upon  earth,  and  accordingly  in  each 
of  them  he  continually  manifested  the  visible 
tokens  of  his  presence.  The  tabernacle  and 
the  temple  received  from  the  permanent  pre- 
sence of  the  Deity,  a  permanent  holiness  which 
was  altogether  unaffected  by  the  personal 
character  or  individual  objects  of  those  who 
resorted  to  them,  and  composed  their  congre- 
gation: the  temple  continued  to  be  a  holy 
place,  even  when  it  had  been  converted,  as  we 
learn  from  the  highest  authority,  into  a  den  of 
thieves.  But  God  has  given  no  subsequent 
command  for  the  erection  of  any  other  temple 


65 

to  his  honour  and  for  his  worship ;  he  has  given 
no  promise  to  sanctify  any  other  by  his  per- 
manent presence  within  it.  On  the  contrary, 
the  divine  founder  of  Christianity,  as  if  anti- 
cipating the  judaizing  proclivities  of  some  who 
in  after  ages  should  call  themselves  his  fol- 
lowers, and  expressly  designing  to  counteract 
and  rebuke  them,  has  declared  that  wheresoever 
two  or  three  should  be  gathered  together  in  his 
name,  there  would  he  be  in  the  midst  of  them. 
It^  is  therefore  the  assembly  of  christians,  how- 
ever humble  and  obscure,  and  wheresoever 
congregated,  whether  in  dens  and  caves  of  the 
earth,  in  the  field,  or  on  the  mountain's  side, 
in  the  lowly  cottage,  the  stately  palace,  or  the 
gorgeous  temple,— it  is  the  assembly  itself  and 
alone,  which,  by  attracting  the  divine  presence 
and  regard  of  Christ,  hallows  any  place  what- 
soever for  the  time ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  dissolution  of  the  assembly  to  which  the 
presence  of  Christ  had  been  for  the  time 
vouchsafed,  leaves  every  place  of  meeting, 
alike  the  church  and  the  field,  again  without 
sanctity  as  at  the  first  it  was.  In  the  words 
of  the  old  puritan  Gillespie,  (cited  in  a  note 
upon  the  foregoing  passage  from  Hooker,  in 
the  edition  of  Hanbury,)  "  How  much  more 
6* 


soundly  do  we  hold  with  J.  Rainolds,  that  unto 
us  christians  no  land  is  strange,  no  ground  un- 
holy ;  every  coast  is  Jewry,  every  town 
Jerusalem,  every  house  Sion,  and  every  faith- 
ful company,  yea  every  faithful  body,  a  temple 
to  serve  God  in.  The  contrary  opinion  Hos- 
pinian  rejecteth  as  favouring  Judaism;  alligat, 
enim  religionem  ad  certa  loca.  Whereas  the 
presence  of  Christ  among  two  or  three  gathered 
together  in  his  name  maketh  any  place  a  church, 
even  as  the  presence  of  a  king  with  his  attend- 
ants maketh  any  place  a  court." 

I  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  sanctity  of 
the  christian  ministrations  is  in  no  degree  de- 
rived from  any  sanctity  of  the  place  in  which 
they  may  happen  to  be  performed;  that  no 
portion  of  those  ministrations  can  properly  be 
regarded  as  superior  in  sanctity  to  the  rest ; 
and  that  consequently  the  distinction  of  a  por- 
tion from  the  rest,  by  the  priest's  use  of  a 
peculiar  ecclesiastical  garb  while  engaged  in 
performing  them,  tends  to  encourage  supersti- 
tion, by  tending  to  encourage  the  idea  that  such 
difference  of  sanctity  does  exist  between  differ- 
ent parts  of  those  ministrations. 

The  following  passage  from  Hallam's  Consti- 
tutional History  of  England  might  reasonably 


67 

be  expected  to  produce  some  impression  upon 
the  Episcopalians  themselves.  It  shows  the 
opinion  which  generally  prevailed  among  the 
fathers  of  the  Established  Church  of  England 
upon  the  subject  of  the  ecclesiastical  vestments ; 
and  further  shows  to  what  influence  it  must  be 
attributed  that  the  use  of  those  vestments  was 
retained  in  that  church. 

"Such  a  reluctance,"  says  Hallam,  "as 
the  queen  (Elizabeth)  displayed  to  return  in 
every  point  even  to  the  system  established 
under  Edward,  was  no  slight  disappointment 
to  those  who  thought  that  too  little  had  been 
effected  by  it.  They  had  beheld  at  Zurich  and 
Geneva  the  simplest,  and,  as  they  conceived, 
the  purest  form  of  worship.  They  were  per- 
suaded that  the  vestments  still  worn  by  the 
clergy,  as  in  the  days  of  popery,  though  in 
themselves  indifferent,  led  to  erroneous  notions 
among  the  people,  and  kept  alive  a  recollection 
of  former  superstitions,  which  would  render 
their  return  to  them  more  easy  in  the  event  of 
another  political  revolution.  They  disliked 
some  other  ceremonies  for  the  same  reason^ 
These  objections  were  by  no  means  confined,  as 
is  perpetually  insinuated,  to  a  few  discontented 
persons.     Except  Archbishop  Parker,  who  had 


remained  in  England  during  the  late  reign,  and 
Cox,  bishop  of  Ely,  who  had  taken  a  strong  part 
at  Frankfort  against  innovation,  all  the  most 
eminent  churchmen,  such  as  Jewel,  Grindal, 
Sandys,  Norvell,  were  in  favour  of  leaving  off 
the  surplice  and  what  were  called  the  popish 
ceremonies.  Whether  their  objections  are  to 
be  deemed  narrow  and  frivolous  or  otherwise, 
it  is  inconsistent  with  veracity  to  dissemble  that 
the  queen  alone  was  the  cause  of  retaining  those 
observances,  to  which  the  great  separation  from 
the  Anglican  establishment  is  ascribed.  Had 
her  influence  been  withdrawn,  surplices  and 
square  caps  would  have  lost  their  steadiest 
friend ;  and  several  other  little  accommodations 
to  the  prevalent  dispositions  of  protestants 
would  have  taken  place.  Of  this  it  seems  im- 
possible to  doubt,  when  we  read  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  convocation  in  1562,  when  a  pro- 
position to  abolish  most  of  the  usages  deemed, 
objectionable  w^as  lost  only  by  a  vote,  the 
numbers  being  59  to  58."  In  a  note  upon  the 
last  sentence,  the  historian  adds  :  "  It  was  pro- 
posed on  this  occasion  to  abolish  all  saints' 
days,  to  omit  the  cross  in  baptism,  to  leave 
kneeling  at  the  communion  to  the  ordinary's 
discretion,  to  take  away  organs,  and  one  or 


69 

two  more  of  the  ceremonies  then  chiefly  in  dis- 
ipute.  Norvell  voted  in  the  minority.  It  can 
hardly  be  going  too  far  to  suppose  that  some  of 
ithe  majority  were  attached  to  the  old  religion." 
(Vol.  I.  ch.'^4,  second  English  edition,  p.  237, 
238.) 

If  any  Episcopalian  should  chance  to  read 
these  remarks,  and  feel  disposed  to  make  the 
objection,  that  to  impute  to  the  Episcopalian 
use  of  ecclesiastical  vestments  a  tendency  to 
encourage  superstition,  is  to  impute  to  the  use 
of  them  by  the  Jewish  priests  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  a  similar  tendency,  I  reply,  for 
his  peculiar  benefit,  (for  only  an  Episcopalian 
or  a  Roman  Catholic  could  make  the  objection 
or  need  the  reply,)  that  the  Deity  himself  pre- 
scribed the  fashion  of  the  Jewish  ecclesiastical 
garments,  and  expressly  commanded  that  they 
should  be  worn  by  the  Jewish  priests  while  en- 
gaged in  performing  the  duties  of  the  priestly 
office;  and  that  the  obedience  of  those  priests 
to  the  positive  command  of  God  could  not 
possibly  have  any  tendency  to  encourage  super- 
stition. It  is  the  uncommanded  and  voluntary 
adoption  of  similar  garments  by  the  Episcopa- 
lian priests,  without  even  a  warrant  from  any 
creditable  tradition  of  apostolic  usage  or  sane- 


70 

tion,  that  distinguishes  their  case  from  that  of 
the  Jewish  priests,  and  leaves  their  own  practice 
open  to  the  charge  of  superstitious  tendency, 
•while  no  such  charge  can  without  irreverence 
and  blasphemy  be  applied  to  that  which  pre- 
vailed in  the  service  of  the  Jewish  tabernacle 
and  temple. 


71 


V.  I  believe  that  some  parts  of  the  Communion 
Service  of  the  Episcopal  Church  tend  directly  to 
Inculcate  superstition  and  idolatry. 

1.  At  a  certain  stage  of  the  communion  ser- 
vice, before  the  consecration  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  the  priest  reads  to  the  people  a  few  sen- 
tences from  the  Scripture,  and  then  exhorts 
them  to  lift  up  their  hearts,  and  invites  them 
to  join  him  in  giving  thanks  to  the  Lord ;  to 
which  the  people  make  suitable  responses.  The 
order  of  the  service  then  presents  the  following 
direction:  ''Then  shall  the  priest  turn  to  the 
Lord's  table,  and  say.  It  is  very  meet,  right, 
and  our  bounden  duty,  that  we  should  at  all 
times  and  in  all  places  give  thanks  unto  thee, 
0  Lord,  Holy  Father,  Almighty,  Everlasting 
God." 

This  brief  address  to  the  Deity  contains  a 
simple  acknowledgment  of  the  obligation  to 
render  to  him  the  homage  of  thanksgiving. 
Not  even  a  reference  to  the  sacrament  or  to 
the  table  is  contained  or  implied  in  the  words 
spoken  by  the  priest.  Why  then  is  he  required, 
before  he  utters  them,  to  turn  to  the  commu- 
nion table,  turning,  of  course,  his  back  upon 


"72 

tlie  congregation  ?  The  idea  naturally  suggested 
by  such  a  requisition  is,  that  the  Deity  is  more 
immediately  present  in  that  direction.     But  if 
that  idea,  thus  naturally  suggested,  is  in  fact 
intended  to  be  conveyed,  I  think  that  the  intent 
is  to  inculcate  a  plain  and  unequivocal  super- 
stition.    Christ  has  indeed  promised  that  where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  his  name, 
there  he  will  be  in  the  midst  of  them ;  and 
Episcopalians  are  therefore  warranted  in  the 
belief  that,  when  they  assemble  for  public  wor-i 
ship,  the  presence  of  Christ  is  with  them.     Butt 
there  is  no  warrant  whatever  for  the  belief  thatt 
his  presence  is  exclusively  or  peculiarly  in  one 
direction,  or  in  one  part  of  the  church.     I  know, 
that  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  the  presence 
of  the  Deity  was  not  only  vouchsafed  to  the 
tabernacle  and  the  temple,  but  was  peculiarly 
and  visibly  manifested  in  one  particular  part, 
—upon  the  mercy-seat,  between  the  cherubim. 
Do  Episcopalians  thence  infer  that  in  a  christ- 
ian church  also  there  must  be  a  local  and  mate- 
rial mercy-seat,  upon  which  the  divine  presence^ 
sits  peculiarly  though  invisibly  enthroned ;  and 
that  the  communion  table  constitutes  such  a 
mercy-seat  ?     If  the  action  required  from  the 
priest  is  required  without  any  definite  meaning 


73 

or  object,  the  requisition  becomes  frivolous  and 
absurd,  and  consequently  objectionable  on  that 
ground :  if  it  has  a  definite  meaning  and  object, 
as  I  presume  the  Episcopalians  must  believe 
that  it  has,  I  can  imagine  none  that  would  not 
be  liable  to  the  charge  of  superstition. 
I     2.  At  a  stage  of  the  service  earlier  than  that 
|to  which  I  have  just  referred,  the  priest  is  re- 
I  quired  to  return  to  the  Lord's  table,  and  begin 
I  the   Offertory,    at  a  later  stage,  immediately 
;  following  the   consecration  of  the  bread  and 
I  wine,  the  service  of  the  Episcopal  church  of  the 
United  States  (differing  in  that  respect  from 
the  service  of  the  Episcopal  church  of  England, 
as  I  learn  from  a  note  of  the  American  editor 
of  Whytehead's  Key  to  the  Prayer  Book)  con- 
tains a  part  called  the  Oblation.    These  ominous 
names  are  taken  from  the  mass  book  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  church,  in  which  they  refer 
directly  to  the  offering  of  that  idolatrous  sacri- 
fice which  all  protestants  Profess  to  hold  in 
devout  abhorrence.     The  Oblation  of  the  Epis- 
copal church  of  the  United  States  is  in  the 
following  words  :     "  Wherefore,  0  Lord  and 
heavenly  Father,  according  to  the  institution 
of  thy  dearly  beloved  Son  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  we,  thy  humble  servants,  do  celebrate 
7 


74 

and  make  here  before  thy  Divine  Majesty,  v.ith 
these  thy  holy  gifts,  which  we  now  offer  unto 
thee,  the  memorial  thy  Son  hath  commanded 
us  to  make ;  having  in  remembrance  his  blessed 
passion  and  precious  death,  his  mighty  resur- 
rection and  glorious  ascension  ;  rendering  unto 
thee  most  hearty  thanks  for  the  innumerable 
benefits  procured  unto  us  by  the  same."  In 
like  manner,  in  the  mass  book  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  church,  immediately  after  the  conse- 
cration of  the  bread  and  wine,  there  follows  an 
Oblation,  of  which  the  following  is  an  exact 
version :  ^'Wherefore,  0  Lord,  we  thy  servants, 
as  also  thy  holy  people,  having  in  remembrance 
the  so  blessed  passion  of  the  same  Christ  thy 
Son  our  Lord,  and  likewise  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  as  also  his  glorious  ascension 
into  heaven,  offer  to  thy  illustrious  Majesty,  of 
thy  donations  and  gifts,  a  Victim  pure,  a  victim 
holy,  a  victim  unspotted ;  the  holy  Bread  of 
eternal  life,  and  Cup  of  everlasting  salvation." 
In  order  that  those  who  may  wish  to  test  the 
accuracy  of  the  version  may  have  no  trouble  in 
doing  so,  I  subjoin  the  words  of  the  Latin  origi- 
nal: "Undo   et  memorcs,  Domine,  nos  scrvi 

tui,  sed  ct  plebs  tua  sancta,  ejusdem  Christi 
Filii  tui  Domini  nostri  tam  beatse  passionis,  nee 


75 

non  et  ab  inferis  resurrectionis,  sed  et  in  coelos 
gloriosc^  ascensionis,  offerimus  prseclarse  Maje£- 
^ati  tu«,  de  tuis  donis  ac  datis,  Hostiam  puram, 
hostiam  sanctam,  hostiam  immaculatam:  Pa- 
nem  sanctum  vitse  seternge,  et  Calicem  salutis 
■perpetuae." 

The  oblation  of  the  Episcopal  church,  it  will 
be  observed,  contains  the  remarkable  words, — 
^  these  thy  holy  gifts,  which  we  now  offer  unto 
■  thee."    Why  are  the  bread  and  wine  here  called 
[the  holy  gifts  of  God?     Is  it  meant  that  they 
'are  at  all  times  and  in  their  own  nature  holy; 
lor  that  they  are  holy  by  reason  of  the  conse- 
,cration  which  they  have  just  i^eceived  from^  the 
'priest?     As  I  cannot  suppose  that  the  Episco- 
palians attribute  to  bread  and  wine  any  inherent 
sanctity  by  which  they  are  distinguished  from 
other  gifts  of  God,  I  must  presume  that  the 
holiness  intended  in  this  place  is  that  which 
they  derive  from  the  consecration.     We  find 
the  Roman  Catholics,  then,  offering  to  God,  of 
his  own  gifts,  a  victim  pure,  holy,  unspotted; 
we  find  the  Episcopalians  offering  to  God  his 
own  holy  gifts  of  bread  and  wine,  rendered  thus 
holy  by  the  priest's  consecration.     What  is  the 
effect  that  Episcopalians  suppose  to  be  produced 
upon  the  bread  and  wine  by  the  consecration, 


76 

in  virtue  of  wliich  eflfect,  whatever  it  may  be, 
it  becomes  admissible  and  proper  to  speak  of 
those  elements  as  holy  ?  If  it  be  meant  that 
the  bread  and  wine  are  holy  because  the  conse- 
cration has  converted  them  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  then  the  clause  under  con- 
sideration contains  a  direct  offer  to  God  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  is  unequivocally 
tantamount  to  the  words  used  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  oblation,  which  all  Protestants  under- 
stand, and  all  Roman  Catholics  acknowledge, 
to  import  the  offer  of  a  visible  and  tangible 
sacrifice ;  words  which  all  Protestants  therefore 
profess  to  condemn  as  superstitious  and  blasphe- 
mous, even  as  they  profess  to  believe  that  the 
practice  of  the  Roman  Catholics  in  adoring 
their  own  sacrifice,  under  the  designation  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  is  idolatry.  If 
it  be  meant,  not  that  the  elements  of  bread  and 
wine  are  converted  by  the  consecration  into  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  that  by  the  con- 
secration the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  become 
united  to  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  and 
incorporated  with  them,  there  will  obviously  be 
no  material  difference  in  the  case ;  the  Episco- 
palians will  only  be  found  offering  to  God, 
instead  of  the  unmixed   body  and   blood   of 


77 

t 

Christ,  tlie  same  body  and  blood  mixed  and 
incorporated  with  the  material  elements  of  bread 
and  wine.     If  the  bread  and  wine  are  rendered 
holy  neither  in  the  one  of  these  modes  nor  in 
the  other,  so  that  the  holiness  resulting  from 
: their  consecration  implies  neither  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  nor  the 
Lutheran    doctrine    of   consubstantiation,  but 
something    different  from  both ;    what   is  the 
nature  of  that  different  effect  which  the  conse- 
cration produces,  and  in  what  sense  are  the 
elements  to  be  termed  holy  ?    When  we  examine 
the  words  spoken  by  the  priest  in  what  is  de- 
nominated the  prayer  of  consecration,  we  find, 
previous  to  the  oblation,  nothing  more  than  a 
brief  expression  of  praise  and  thanks  to  God 
for  the  blessings  procured  to  men  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  Christ  upon  the  cross,  with  the  addition 
of  a  recital,  taken  from  the  evangelical  history, 
of  the  actions  and  words  of  the  Saviour  at  the 
time  of  instituting  the  sacrament.  Consequently 
the  words  thus  far  spoken  by  the  priest,  contain- 
ing not  even  a  prayer  to  God  that  the  bread  and 
wine  may  become  sanctified,  are  not  a  consecra- 
tion, and  we  must  look  to  the  actions  of  the  priest 
as  the  means  through  which  the  consecration  is 
effected.     We  find  that  he  is  directed,  as  he 
7* 


78 

utters  the  words  "  This  is  my  body,"  in  his  re- 
cital of  the  evangelical  narrative,  to  lay  his 
hands  upon  all  the  bread  (which  he  has  just 
before  broken) ;  and  as  he  utters  the  words 
"  This  is  my  blood,"  to  lay  his  hand  upon  every 
vessel  in  which  there  is  any  wine  to  be  conse- 
crated. It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  bread 
and  wine  receive  their  consecration  from  the 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  priest,  and  by 
virtue  of  that  imposition  alone  do  they  acquire 
the  character  of  holy  things.  But  whence  does 
the  priest  himself  derive  the  power  of  conferring, 
by  the  imposition  of  his  hands,  holiness  upon 
that  which  possessed  no  holiness  before  ?  I 
presume  it  must  be  from  his  own  possession  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  received  at  the  time  of  his 
ordination  by  the  bishop.  And  I  suppose 
farther,  that  the  effect  which  Episcopalians 
attribute  to  the  consecration,  and  the  sense  in 
which  they  denominate  the  consecrated  ele- 
ments holy,  must  (if  the  doctrines  of  transub- 
stantiation  and  consubstantiation  be  rejected) 
amount  at  least  to  this :  that  the  elements  of 
bread  and  wine  have  a  virtue  and  an  efficacy 
imparted  to  them  by  the  consecration,  which 
cause  them  to  become,  to  him  who  worthily  re- 
ceives them,  the  medium  of  participation  of  the 


79 

body  and  blood  of  Christ;  and  consequently 
that,  unless  such  virtue  and  efficacy  are  so  im- 
parted to  them,  they  cannot  serve  as  the  medium 
of  such  participation.  I  have  already  stated, 
in  some  detail,  my  reasons  for  believing  that 
the  priest  does  not,  by  the  ordination  he  re- 
ceives from  the  bishop,  become,  in  any  proper 
sense,  invested  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  remark,  that  I  certainly 
do  not  and  cannot  believe  him  to  acquire  by 
ordination  any  such  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
as  would  be  implied  in  the  virtue  and  efficacy 
which  Episcopalians  attribute  to  his  consecra- 
tion of  the  sacramental  elements.  Indeed,  the 
very  claim  of  such  a  power,  as  resulting  from 
ordination  by  the  bishop,  is  to  my  own  mind  a 
convincing  proof  that  irreverence  and  blasphemy 
are  the  proper  characters  of  the  form  of  ordina- 
tion itself.  For,  what,  in  effect,  is  the  doctrine 
of  Episcopalians  on  the  subject  of  the  priestly 
consecration  of  the  elements,  as  that  doctrine 
is  above  deduced  (and  properly  deduced,  I  doubt 
not)  from  the  words  of  their  own  communion 
service  ?  It  is,  not  only  that  the  priest  has  the 
power  to  make  that  holy  which  was  without 
holiness  before,  but  that,  unless  he  has  duly 
exercised  that  power  by  the  imposition  of  his 


80 

hands  upon  the  sacramental  bread  and  upon 
the  vessels  containing  the  sacramental  wine,  the 
bread  and  the  wine,  though  they  may  be  re- 
ceived by  the  pious  christian  in  all  reverence 
and  with  the  fullest  assurance  of  faith,  are  not 
and  cannot  become  the  medium  of  conveying 
to  him  a  participation  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
the  Saviour.  The  priest  does  not  indeed  assume 
the  power  of  controling  the  effect  which  the 
elements  he  has  consecrated  shall  produce  upon 
the  spiritual  condition  of  him  who  receives  them, 
nor  even  the  power  of  judging  with  infallible 
certainty  what  that  effect  will  be  ;  he  is  content 
to  leave  the  Deity  in  undisturbed  possession  of 
both  that  power  of  control,  and  that  power  of 
infallible  judgment;  and  accordingly,  without 
undertaking  to  pronounce  that  any  recipient  of 
the  consecrated  elements  will  thereby  become 
assuredly  participant  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  he  proceeds,  in  the  part  of  his  prayer 
called  the  Invocation,  which  follows  the  conse- 
cration, to  beseech  that  the  Deity  will  vouchsafe 
to  bless  and  sanctify  those  elements  with  his 
AYord  and  Holy  Spirit,  so  that  those  who  re- 
ceive them  may  be  partakers  of  the  most  blessed 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Still  the  power 
which  he  does  claim  is  so  vast  and  wonderful, 


81 

that  I  cannot  comprehend  how  anything  short 
of  blasphemy  can  be  attributed  to  the  claim 
itself,  or  anything  short  of  the  grossest  super- 
stition to  the  concession  of  it. 

But  whatever  be  the  effect  which,  according 
to  the  Episcopalian  doctrine,  the  consecration 
produces ;  whether  it  converts  the  bread  and 
wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  or  in- 
corporates the  substances  of  the  body  and  blood 
with  those  of  the  bread  and  wine,  or  imparts  to 
the  consecrated  elements  some  mysterious  and 
'  undefinable  quality  which  they  had  not  before, 
or  leaves  them,  altogether  unchanged ;  certain 
it  is  that  the  Episcopalians,  according  to  the 
express  words  of  their  own  Communion  service, 
present  those  elements,  substances  material, 
visible  and  tangible,  as  an  offering  to  the 
Supreme  Being.  Is  not  this  the  offence  of 
Nadab  and  Abihu,  who  offered  strange  fire 
before  the  Lord,  which  he  commanded  them 
not  ?  I  have  always  supposed  that,  whatever 
other  portions  of  the  Law  given  to  the  Jews  may 
have  been  retained  in  force  under  the  christian 
dispensation,  the  system  of  material  sacrifices 
and  offerings  was  certainly  not  so  retained, 
either  in  whole  or  in  part.  But  those  who  take 
for  their  standard  of  religious  doctrine  and  duty 


82 

the  Prayer  Book  of  the  American  Episcopal  I 
church  will  there  learn  a  very  different  lesson. 
They  will  learn  that  the  sacrifices  and  offerings 
of  the  christian  are  not  exclusively  of  a  spiritual  I 
and  moral  nature ;  that  prayer,  praise,  thanks- 
giving, contrition  for  sin,  the  holiness  and  self- 
denial  implied  in  the  christian  life,  the  exercise 
of  charity  and  benevolence  towards  fellow  beings 
of  the  human  race,  and  whatever  other  moral 
virtues,  religious  exercises,  and  spiritual  dispo- 
sitions may  have  been  described  by  the  figura- 
tive appellation  of  sacrifices  and  offerings  to 
God,  if  they  be  not  of  themselves  insufficient,, 
at  least  are  not  exclusively  proper,  and  that; 
christians  may  still  come  before  the  Most  High 
God  with  an  offering  of  material  things,  provided 
those  things  be  bread  and  wine  consecrated  by 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  an  Episcopalian 
priest. 

3.  The  communion  service  of  the  Episcopal 
church  requires  that  the  consecrated  elements  ; 
shall  be  received  by  the  communicants,  <'all 
devoutly  kneeling ;"  and  this  attitude  Hooker 
pronounces  to  be  ''the  gesture  of  piety."  The 
same  attitude  is  assumed  upon  the  same  occa- 
sion by  the  Roman  Catholics,  with  whom  it 
certainly  is  not  the  gesture  of  piety ;  for  it  is 


83 

the  very  attitude  they  have  selected  as  the  most 
appropriate  for  the  purpose  of  manifesting  by 
an  outward  sign  their  idolatrous  worship  of  the 
consecrated  elements,  which  they  believe  to 
have  been  transmitted  by  the  consecration  into 
the  actual  body  and  blood  of  the  crucified 
Saviour.  This  attitude  being  thus  pre-occupied 
by  the  Roman  Catholics,  and  perverted  into  a 
sign  and  very  badge  of  idolatrous  w^orship,  the 
adoption  of  it  by  the  Episcopalians,  as  the  ap- 
propriate gesture  of  piety,  seems  to  come  within 
the  precise  scope  of  St.  Paul's  reprehension 
before  noticed,  of  the  practice  of  praying  and 
prophesying  with  the  head  covered.  And  yet 
more  remarkable  is  that  adoption,  when  we 
reflect  that,  from  the  account  which  the  evan- 
gelical historians  have  given  of  the  institution 
of  the  sacrament  in  question,  it  is  a  matter  of 
almost  absolute  certainty  that  the  apostles  of 
Christ  were  not  kneeling  when  they  received 
the  bread  and  wine  from  the  hands  of  their 
divine  master.  Indeed,  the  Evangelists  could 
not  well  have  rendered  that  point  more  unques- 
tionable, except  by  expressly  stating  that  the 
apostles  did  not  kneel ;  and  an  express  decla- 
ration to  that  effect  might  well  be  deemed  by 
the  inspired  writers  a  mere  superfluity,  when 


84 

they  had  just  before  stated  that  Christ  and  his 
apostles  sat  down  together  at  the  Paschal  sup- 
per, in  the  course  of  which  the  sacrament  was 
instituted.  Why  then  should  the  Episcopalians 
deviate  from  the  example  furnished  at  the  very 
institution  of  the  sacrament,  and  abandon  the 
attitude  w^hich  the  apostles,  with  the  sanction 
of  Christ  himself,  maintained  upon  that  solemn 
and  memorable  occasion,  for  a  "  gesture  of 
piety,"  which,  by  their  own  acknowledgment, 
is  also  the  chosen  gesture  of  idolatry  ?  Were 
the  apostles,  when  they  received  from  the  hands 
of  the  Saviour  himself  the  bread  and  wine 
which  he  himself  had  blessed  and  sanctified, 
less  benefitted,  and  for  that  reason  less  bound 
to  assume  the  attitude  of  devout  thankfulness  ? '' 
or  were  they  less  pious,  and  therefore  less 
inclined  to  adopt  the  appropriate  gesture  of 
piety,  than  the  Episcopalians  are  at  the  present 
day,  when  a  priest  of  their  church  administers 
to  them  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 
Are  the  Episcopalians  better  judges  of  the; 
attitude  which  piety  and  thankfulness  require, 
upon  such  an  occasion,  than  Christ  and  his 
apostles  were?  Or,  finally,  is  it  their  belief 
that  the  apostles  did  actually  rise  from  their 
seats  at  the  table,  and  kneel  down  before  the 


85 

Saviour,  to  receive  from  his  iiands  the  bread 
and  wine  of  the  sacrament  ?  It  might  seem 
indeed  that  such  is  really  their  belief,  the 
evangelists  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding ; 
for,  in  a  recent  edition  of  the  Prayer  Book,  I 
have  observed  a  picture  purporting  to  represent 
the  scene  at  the  institution  of  the  sacrament 
in  which  some  of  the  apostles  are  kneeling  at 
the  table  on  the  side  opposite  to  the  Saviour, 
while  others  (either  waiting,  we  may  presume, 
for  the  proper  time  to  kneel  in  their  turn,  or 
having  already  risen  from  the  kneeling  posture) 
are  seated.  If  this  picture  indicates  the  belief 
of  Episcopalians  respecting  the  attitude  of  the 
first  communicants,  it  would  be  but  an  idle 
expenditure  of  time  and  astonishment  to  mar- 
vel how  they  attained  that  belief;  for  their 
capacity  of  believing  without  reason  or  evi- 
dence, and  against  the  strongest  reason  and  the 
clearest  evidence,  has  been  sufficiently  evinced 
in  several  of  the  articles  that  have  already 
fallen  under  review.  If,  however,  those  who 
authorized  the  publication  of  "the  picture  in 
question,  did  not  believe  that  which  it  indicates, 
and  which  it  was  evidently  designed  to  impress 
upon  the  minds  of  others,  then,  in  proportion 
as  their  own  intellectual  discernment  was  clear, 
8 


S6 

^their  conscience  must  have  been  blinded,  if  it 
failed  to  perceive  that  the  publication  of  such 
a  picture  was  an  unworthy  and  discreditable 
artifice. 

4.  The  order  of  the  communion  service 
directs  that,  at  the  communion  time,  the  table 
shall  have  a  fair  white  linen  cloth  upon  it ;  and 
that,  when  the  minister  and  people  have  all 
communicated,  the  minister  shall  reverently 
replace  upon  the  table  what  remaineth  of  the 
consecrated  elements,  covering  the  same  wath  a 
fair  linen  cloth.  A  fair  linen  cloth  is  a  very 
common  covering  for  a  table,  though  not  a  very 
common  one,  I  believe,  for  bread  and  wine. 
But  why  should  the  order  of  the  service  pre- 
scribe that  a  fair  linen  cloth  shall  exclusively 
and  always  be  used  to  cover  the  table  and  the 
remains  of  tlie  consecrated  bread  and  wine  ? 
This  direction  appears  idle  and  frivolous  at  the 
first  view ;  but  it  becomes  quite  significant 
when  we  recollect  that  the  crucified  body  of 
the  Saviour,  when  removed  from  the  cross,  was 
wrapped  in  a  clean  linen  cloth,  of  fine  linen, 
and  so  was  laid  in  the  sepulchre. 

5.  The  order  of  the  service  directs  that,  if 
any  of  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine  remain 
after  the  communion,  it  shall  not  be  carried  out 


87 

of  the  cliurcli;  but  the  minister  and  other 
communicants  shall,  immediately  after  the 
blessing,  reverently  eat  and  drink  the  same. 
These  strange  regulations,  which  might  utterly 
confound  the  simple  christian  who  has  deemed 
it  sufficient  to  study  the  New  Testament  for  the 
purpose  of  understanding  the  nature  of  the 
sacrament  which  the  Saviour  instituted  at  his 
last  supper  with  the  apostles,  receive  immediate 
illumination  when  we  turn  to  the  sacrificial 
law  of  the  Jews :  for  we  find  in  that  law  the 
following  injunctions : 

"And  this  is  the  law  of  the  meat-ofi'ering ; 
the  sons  of  Aaron  shall  offer  it  before  the  Lord, 
before  the  altar.  And  he  shall  take  of  it  his 
handful,  of  the  flour  of  the  meat-offering,  and 
of  the  oil  thereof,  and  all  the  frankincense 
which  is  upon  the  meat-offering,  and  shall  burn 
it  upon  the  altar  for  a  sweet  savour,  even 
the  memorial  of  it,  unto  the  Lord.  And 
the  remainder  thereof  shall  Aaron  and  his 
sons  eat;  with  unleavened  bread  shall  it  be 
eaten  in  the  holy  place  ;  in  the  court  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation  they  shall  eat 
it."     (Levit.  vi.  14-16.) 

"And  this  is  the  law  of  the  sacrifice  of  peace- 
offerings,  which  he  shall  offer  unto  the  Lord. 


If  he  offer  it  for  a  thanksgiving,  then  he  shall  | 
offer  with  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  unlea- 1 
vened  cakes  mingled  with  oil,  and  unleavened  ; 
wafers  anointed  with  oil,  and  cakes  mingled  i 
with  oil,  of  fine  flour,  fried.     Besides  the  cakes,  ; 
he  shall  offer  for  his  offering,  leavened  bread, 
with  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  of  his  peace- 
offerings.     And  of  it  he  shall  offer  one  out  of  ] 
the  whole  oblation  for  an  heave-offering  unto 
the  Lord,  and  it   shall   be  the   priest's  that 
sprinkleth   the   blood  of  the   peace-offerings. 
And  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  of  his  peace-offer- 
ings for  thanksgiving  shall  be  eaten  the  same 
day  that  it  is  offered ;  he  shall  not  leave  any 
of  it  until  the  morning."    (Levit.  vii.  11 — 15.) 

A  similar  direction  was  given,  that  no  part  of 
the  flesh  of  the  paschal  lamb  should  be  suffered 
to  remain  until  the  morning.     (Exod.  xii.  10.) 

To  my  own  apprehension  it  is  quite  plain 
that  the  tendency  of  those  parts  of  the  commu- 
nion service  of  the  Episcopal  church,  upon 
which  I  have  remarked,  is  to  connect  with  the 
consecrated  bread  and  wine  the  inseparable 
notion  of  a  material  sacrifice  offered  to  God, 
and  consisting  of  the  actual  body  and  blood  of 
the  Saviour;  and  consequently  I  cannot  but 


89 

believe  that  those  parts  of  the  service  tend 
directly  to  inculcate  superstition  and  idolatry, 
I  am  perfectly  aware  that  the  28th  of  the 
Articles  of  Religion  set  forth  by  the  Episcopal 
church   contains   the   following    declarations : 
'''Transuhstantiation  (or  the  change  of  the  Sub- 
stance of  Bread  and  Wine)  in  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord,  cannot  be  proved  by  Holy  Writ ;  but  it 
is  repugnant  to  the  plain  words  of  Scripture, 
overthroweth  the  nature  of  a  Sacrament,  and 
hath  given  occasion  to  many  Superstitions. — 
The  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  not 
by  Christ's  Ordinance  reserved,  carried  about, 
lifted  up,  or  w^orshipped."     I  am  aware  also 
that  the  Articles  of  Religion  are  contained  in 
the  Prayer  Book,  and  that  Episcopalians  may 
there  read  the  28th  article  among  the  rest. 
But  as  the  Articles  are  never,  I  believe,  read 
in  the  church  to  the  assembled  congregation, 
and  as  no  question  is  asked  about  them,  and  no 
reference  made  to  them,  either  in  the  catechism 
or  in  the  confirmation  service,  it  is  quite  within 
the  range  of  possibility  for  an  Episcopalian  to 
remain  for  years,  or  for  life,  in  ignorance  that 
any  such  synopsis  of  doctrine  as  that  contained 
in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  has  existence ;  nor 
is  it  at  all  improbable  that,  of  those  Episcopa- 


90 

lians  who  know  the  Articles  to  exist,  and  to  be 
contained  in  the  Prayer  Book,  many  have  never 
read  them.  Meanwhile  the  communion  is  ad- 
ministered, and  the  communion  service  read  at 
least  once  in  each  month ;  and  though  the  spirit 
and  doctrine  of  the  28th  article  are  in  a  great 
degree  repugnant  to  the  spirit  and  doctrine  of 
those  portions  of  the  communion  service  which 
I  have  made  the  subject  of  comment,  it  is  easy 
to  discern  that,  under  such  circumstances  as 
those  which  have  just  been  mentioned,  the  ser- 
vice is  far  more  likely  than  the  article  to  mould 
the  opinions  of  the  worshipper. 

I  neither  assert,  nor  believe,  that  all  Episco- 
palians are  given  over  to  superstition  and  idola- 
try ;  for  I  cannot  pretend  to  define  in  how  many 
cases,  or  to  what  extent,  purity  of  heart  and 
right  affections  toward  God,  or  even  a  fortui- 
tous encounter  with  their  own  28th  article,  may 
enable  them  to  withstand  and  counteract  the 
contaminating  influence  of  their  own  liturgy. 
Forms  of  doctrine  and  worship,  however,  are 
not  designed  to  try  the  strength,  but  to  aid  the 
weakness  of  the  worshipper ;  and  while  the  fact 
that  some  or  even  very  many  of  the  Episcopali- 
ans are  neither  superstitious  nor  idolatrous  does 
by  no  means  exclude  the  possibility  that  supersti- 


91 

ion  and  idolati-y  may  be  the  constant  teachings 
f  their  Prayer  Book,  but  at  most  can  only  show 
hat,  even  if  such  be  the  case,  other  and  better 
cachings  may  occasionally  or  frequently  be 
Qterposed  with  success,  I  am  afraid  that  in  a 
auch  larger  number  of  instances  the  opinions 
ntertained  by  Episcopalians  would  afford  indu- 
(itable  evidence  that  the  general  tendency  of 
heir  liturgy  is  such  as  the  foregoing  remarks 
lave  attributed  to  it ;  that  it  is  not  only  in  all 
:ases  a  severe  trial  of  the  strength  of  the  wor- 
hipper,  but  in  very  many  cases  atrial  altogether 
)eyond  his  strength.  There  are  several  grounds 
)n  which  that  suspicion  rests;  but  I  need  only 
efer  to  the  fact  that  defection' from  the  Epis- 
opal  church  to  the  church  of  Rome  is  far  more 
common,  and  obviously  more  easy,  than  similar 
lefection  from  any  other  denomination  of  Pro- 
:estants ;  while  many  of  those  who  remain  within 
ihe  pale  of  the  Episcopal  church  do  not  hesitate 
;o  avow  sentiments  which  so  closely  approxi- 
naate  them  to  Roman  Catholics,  that  it  is  diffi- 
ult  to  understand  why  they  retain  the  name 
of  Protestants  at  all  ,when  their  protest  has 
;become  as  gentle  as  the  "  roar  ofa  sucking  dove." 
Few  readers  of  these  concluding  remarks  will 
be  at  any  loss  to  find  for  them,  in  the  range  of 


92 

their  own  acquaintance  with  Episcopalian  pro 
fessors  of  religion,  and  with  the  writings  oi 
Episcopalian  authors,  ample  materials  for  spes 
cific  application. 

The  considerations  I  have  thus  assigned  an 
sufficient  to  determine  finally  my  own  course; 
and  the  result  is,  that  I  cannot  become  ail 
Episcopalian. 


I 


^^'       11-9-95    321B*^l 


k 


Prmcetpn   Theological   Seminary   Librari 


1    1012   01168   9876 


